Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

QUEEN'S SPEECH (ANSWER TO ADDRESS)

THE VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address as follows:

I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

HARWICH PARKESTON QUAY BILL

To be considered upon Thursday.

NATIONAL PROVIDENT INSTITUTION BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time, and committed.

KEBLE COLLEGE OXFORD BILL [Lords]

SELWYN COLLEGE CAMBRIDGE BILL [Lords]

To be read a Second time upon Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Academic Medical Staff

Sir David Price: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he is satisfied that, in view of the increasing clinical demands of the National Health Service, academic medical staff have adequate time to pursue their research work as well as their teaching duties.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): The Government are aware of the pressures on senior clinical staff in the universities, who have a threefold commitment to teaching, research and patient care. In our guidance to universities and to the National Health Service we have urged close co-operation in the planning of staffing and other resources.

Sir David Price: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box, where he so clearly belongs. May I draw his attention to recommendation No.

11 of the Select Committee on Social Services, which looked into the problem of AIDS? In that recommendation we invited my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to take a much firmer line in ensuring that moneys allocated from his budget for clinical, academic research are not abrogated for the purpose of providing clinical care by default.

Mr. Jackson: This matter has been raised by the Select Committee on Social Services in its report on AIDS. The Government are considering their recommendation on that report and will reply as soon as possible.

Mr. George Howarth: Does the Minister accept that it is high time that we stopped the pretence? Many of the academic appointments that are being made are hardly being used for academic work or research at all, but are being used to cut down waiting lists.

Mr. Jackson: It is difficult to strike a balance to try to ensure that the tripod of responsibilities for teaching, research and patient care is maintained. The Government are concerned to ensure that each of the different legs of the tripod is sustained.

Mr. Colvin: It is good to see my hon. Friend continuing the tradition of fellows of All Souls in the Department of Education and Science. Following the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), is my hon. Friend aware that the 4,000 students studying medical practice who are seconded to general practice as part of their studies are now facing under-funding? As there is no equivalent of the NHS support scheme known as SIFT—Special Increment for Teaching—will he talk to his counterpart at the Department of Health and Social Security to ensure that, between them, the two Departments cover this responsibility?

Mr. Jackson: I will certainly talk to my counterpart at the DHSS. I thank my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to the MacKenzie report. I shall have to write to him further about the matter.

Student Grants

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about when he expects the review of student grants to be completed.

Mr. Jackson: The Government hope to publish proposals for consideration early in 1988.

Mr. Bennett: I wish the Minister well in his new appointment. Is he an enthusiast for loans or for partial loans? Is a bid being put into next year's public expenditure consideration so that the outcome of the review can be implemented a year next September?

Mr. Jackson: The review is being conducted with an open mind. It will take account of all the arguments that are for and against loans and of the experience in other countries. Whether provision must be made next year will depend upon the review group' findings.

Mr. Hunter: Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to comment on the charge that the introduction of a students' loans scheme might deter potential students from higher education?

Mr. Jackson: That is an important aspect of the inquiries that are being conducted by the review group.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Minister comment on the impact in the coming year of the growing number of EEC students coming here and our requirement to provide tuition for them? How does that affect outgoing students and the availability of funds to give higher grants to our students?

Mr. Jackson: It is essential that we observe the provisions of the EC law that we have accepted. That is being done, and we will have to take care of the consequences in terms of the allocation of resources for higher education.

Dr. Hampson: Is my hon. Friend aware that although there has been a significant increase in the number of part-time students, they have great problems because no financial aid is available to them? Is the review group considering a loan scheme for part-time students? If not, why not?

Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend will have noticed the important commitment in the Conservative party's election manifesto to increase higher education places by 50,000 by 1990. One aspect of that is part-time students, and that will be an important part of the work of the review committee.

Mr. Fatchett: While the review is taking place, what steps will the Minister take to restore the level of student grant in real terms to that of 1979?

Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman will know that that matter is reviewed every year in the public expenditure arrangements. I cannot anticipate the conclusions of that review.

Education Bill

Mr. Madel: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to publish the Education Bill; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): The Education Bill, which will provide the legislative base for important improvements in the quality and efficiency of education at all levels, will be introduced as soon as possible following the summer adjournment.

Mr. Madel: In relation to the part of the Bill that will deal with schools opting out of local authority control, will there be a postal ballot of parents with children at that school, will it include parents whose children are about to go to that school, and will those parents have the benefit of an inspector's report on the school before they make the fundamental decision as to whether my right hon. Friend or the local authority should fund the school?

Mr. Baker: On my hon. Friend's first question, we envisage a secret postal ballot of the parents who have children at the school. An inspector's report may be available, depending upon whether an inspector has recently visited the school. But other records will be available, because nowadays schools publish a great deal of information about their performance.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will examinations at ages 7, 11 and 14 form part of the Bill? If so, who will set the examinations?

Mr. Baker: I shall be issuing a consultative document in the next two to three weeks on the arrangements for

establishing a national curriculum, and I shall want to consult widely on that. I shall include in that consultative document the procedures——

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Before the House rises for the recess?

Mr. Baker: I would hope so. I shall include in that consultative document the procedures for the determination of assessments and tests and programmes of work. Later this week, or early next week, I hope to appoint two working parties of experts in mathematics and science, which will be asked to report within the next few months on those two subjects.

Sir Bernard Braine: Will the Bill make provision for children to go to the school of their parents' choice where the headmaster is willing now to take them in?

Mr. Baker: I assure my right hon. Friend that the Bill will introduce a system known as open enrolment to allow much greater choice for parents. In my talks yesterday with the Education Secretary from the United States, where the system has been tried in some of the most depressed and rundown inner cities, I discovered that it has led to a distinct improvement in the quality of schools by involving the voice of the parents. Parents know which are the good schools.

Mr. Ashdown: With respect to the opting out proposals, will the Minister say whether, apart from an occasional group of parents who may want to take advantage of those proposals, some for good reasons and others for bad, there is any other respected voice in education—head teachers, the Confederation of Parents, teachers, administrators, experts or any group—that supports his proposal? Is it not the case that all those who have commented on it, including many Conservatives, recognise these crackpot proposals as damaging, divisive and dangerous?

Mr. Baker: The proposals to which the hon. Gentleman refers are designed to break up the producer domination in the education service. Therefore, I am not in the least surprised that the spokesmen for the producer groups want to keep the status quo. I assure him that pressure for change does not come from above; it comes from below. It comes from individual governors, individual heads, individual teachers and individual parents.

Mr. Haselhurst: In view of the likelihood that schools will have an opportunity to opt out of local education authority control, what will be the approach of my right hon. Friend to section 12 cases where a local education authority may be seeking to amalgamate two schools, and where one of those schools might wish to remain independent?

Mr. Baker: This will be set out in the consultative document that I shall be issuing on grant-maintained schools. It will set out the arrangements that we envisage and the arrangements that will be operating after the full statutory powers exist, which I hope will be in the summer of next year.

Mr. Radice: Will the Secretary of State tell the House how the new opt-out schools will be able to choose their pupils? In particular, will they be able to use the new national test at ages 7, 11 and 14 to select the pupils that they want?

Mr. Baker: I have made this clear in the past. When schools decide to opt out they will retain the character and status that they had when they were within the maintained system. If a grammar school decides to opt out, it will remain a selective school—a grammar school. If a comprehensive school decides to opt out, it will remain a comprehensive school, with the same range of ability. I would not envisage that they would be able to use the new national tests as a process of selection. The House should be aware that schools have to make selections today. Where a school is over-subscribed, as in the case I quoted of a comprehensive in Birmingham, the authority and the head have to select now.

Mr. Bill Walker: When my right hon. Friend brings forward his Bill, will he make it quite clear that it refers only to England and Wales, because during the general election my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) came to Scotland and made a speech on education, which caused enormous confusion as it had no relevance whatever to the Scottish scene?

Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend is correct. I, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, am responsible for the education system in England and Wales. I am not responsible for education in Scotland, but I have a very high regard for it.

University of Wales

Mr. Wigley: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received concerning the future of the University of Wales or of its constituent colleges.

Mr. Jackson: Since the autumn Ministers have held three meetings with deputations from the university and its colleges. My predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden), visited University college, Swansea, on 30 April. Letters have been received in the Department from individuals and groups in each of the colleges.

Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware that considerable damage has been done to the University of Wales over uncertainty about its future, so much so that students who want to do clinical medicine in Cardiff may be farmed out to other colleges or even other universities and that those who want to do education in Bangor have a big question mark over them? Will he ensure that in future the University of Wales is treated as one unit for classification purposes, thereby enabling it to get a class 1 status? Will he also ensure that there are adequate resources to enable colleges to link up so that a wide spectrum of courses can be offered throughout the Univesity of Wales as a whole?

Mr. Jackson: Rationalisation between courses and between colleges is for the colleges to make proposals about. There is a national university system, with a national policy of allocation of resources between institutions, which is handled by the University Grants Committee. I am sure that it will have noted the points made by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Morgan: Will the Secretary of State undertake to speak to Sir Peter Swinnerton-Dyer, the chairman of the University Grants Committee, before the committee next meets on Thursday of this week and ask him to withdraw the unprecedented threat that he made two months ago to

discourage students from undertaking courses at University college, Cardiff? I ask him to do this in the light of the acceptance last week by the council of University college, Cardiff, and of the University of Wales Institute of Science and Technology to agree to the merger proposals in the new plan.

Mr. Jackson: The negotiations that are taking place surrounding the future of University college, Cardiff, and UWIST are at a delicate stage. The hon. Gentleman referred to the meeting that is to take place on Thursday. and I think that it would be unwise of me to anticipate the course of that meeting.

General Certificate of Secondary Education

Mr. Baldry: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the total amount of extra funding that has been provided for the GCSE to date.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): The Government have provided for expenditure on GCSE non-teaching costs and in-service training of over £145 million in the financial years 1986–87 and 1987–88. Of this, some £55 million is supported by earmarked grants for books, equipment and in-service training. In addition, continuing improvement in the planned pupil-teacher ratio is allowing more teacher time for the GCSE.

Mr. Baldry: Is it correct that more new money from the Government has been made available for the GCSE than perhaps for any other like initiative, and that the schools and teachers who have been working hard on the GCSE are now starting to produce good and exciting results? Does my hon. Friend agree that much of the bad press about the GCSE has been peddled by some teachers and some teachers' unions which are never prepared to accept that anything good can happen in our state schools?

Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend is correct to say that the GCSE is the most generously funded examination ever to be produced. In addition to the £100 million planned expenditure for non-teaching costs, an additional £15 million has been earmarked this year for in-service training. That is on top of the £10 million that was earmarked last year for in-service training. As it was the teaching profession that urged and argued most vehemently for the introduction of the GCSE—the urging and arguing continued for about 10 years—it seems a pity that some of the teachers' unions are carping slightly about it now. This important examination has been wlecomed by teachers, pupils, potential employers and parents, and I hope that it gets off to a good start.

Mr. Flannery: Does the Minister accept that although the entire education world agreed with the Government and wanted the GCSE examination, a vast section of it is deeply worried that it came about a year too soon? The National Confederation of Parent-Teacher Associations has engaged in research and has recently stated that only 3 per cent. of schools which welcomed the examination have received the necessary equipment to conduct it properly.

Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Gentleman will know that local authorities have received the moneys for which they asked in this year's planned expenditure. The hon. Gentleman says that a part of the education world


considers that the GCSE was introduced a year too soon, but I suspect that it would have been a year too soon whenever it was introduced.

Mr. Rathbone: I welcome the Government's support for the GCSE and the vast amounts of money that have been made available for the examination. Does my hon. Friend accept, however, that there are ways in which the funding can go astray on its route from the Department to the schools and that individual schools are facing considerable administrative difficulties, even after cutting and paring, to meet the added cost of the introduction of the new syllabus?

Mrs. Rumbold: It is true that there has been some delay in some authorities. That is due partly to schools being uncertain about the amount of money that they require. It is not entirely the fault of authorities. We shall be conducting a survey of how GCSE moneys are reaching the schools, and we hope to publish the results by the beginning of next year.

Mr. Steinberg: Is the Minister aware that, despite what she says, many parents are having to purchase equipment and books out of their own pockets because of the lack of funding for the GCSE?

Mrs. Rumbold: The examination has been extremely well funded in terms of equipment and books. It is still possible to use much of the equipment and books for the examination that were in the schools previously. For example, 1066 remains the same date and Shakespeare remains the author of the Shakespearean plays.

Mr. Rowe: Does my hon. Friend accept that the examination has not only been welcomed but welcomed with a considerable degree of excitement within the education system? Will she give an assurance that employers, who are frequently extremely confused by the meaning of various examinations, are actually prepared to evaluate what the examination result tells them about potential employees?

Mrs. Rumbold: I hope that my hon. Friend will be greatly reassured by the fact that we are carrying out a number of regional conferences which are specifically designed to reassure employers and to explain to them the content of the GCSE and how it works. I trust that that will allay many of their fears.

Education Charges

Mr. Nicholas Brown: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on his policy on education charges in schools.

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received about payments by parents in relation to the education of their children in state schools.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: A number of parents, local education authorities, and the local authority associations have asked my Department for clarification of the present law. It is important to proceed in a way which will not threaten the principle of free education, but will preserve the valued provision made possible only by authorities' current charging practices. I shall be consulting in due course on how this might best be achieved.

Mr. Brown: How will the Government's declared aim of achieving freedom of choice be realised if pupils are debarred from undertaking courses because they cannot afford the cost?

Mr. Baker: I ask the hon. Member, who follows these matters, and followed them closely during the election, to bear in mind that many authorities—by no means Conservative authorities—and his own authority make some charge, as I understand it, for accommodation on field study trips. I emphasise the fact and assure him that it is no part of the Government's policy to impose charges. In consultation with local government, we want to preserve its freedom to continue with long-standing practice.

Mr. Janner: Does the Minister understand that local authorities are forced into imposing charges when the Government do not provide basic essential education resources and that it is a travesty and a disgrace, especially for disadvantaged schools and areas, that parents should have to pay for books, sports, visits, music and for what well-off people regard as normal essentials of education? That is the great divide that the Government are forcing upon our school system.

Mr. Baker: The hon. and learned Gentleman should appreciate that the issue first arose as soon as the Education Act 1944 was on the statute book. The first circular on charging was issued then to try to clarify what were extra curriculum charges. This has not cropped up in the past two or three years. In fact, the practice of charging for certain extras has been established between many authorities for 20 or 30 years.

Mr. Pawsey: On the broader matter of charges and costs, will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether he has any proposals to transfer costs, particularly teacher salaries, from LEAs to the Exchequer?

Mr. Baker: I see massive difficulties in moving the cost of all or a substantial part of local education authorities' expenditure to my Department. If, for example, the amount of teachers' salaries, which local authorities provide, were moved to my Department, it would be at a cost of about £3·9 billion. It would certainly totally distort the relationships between central and local government and education. That money would have to be found from the national Exchequer. That amount of money roughly represents 3p on income tax or 3·5 per cent. on VAT.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that for years pupils have paid for activities which many times they have initiated, such as field trips and the rest, but that all schools have always covered children who, for any reason at all, were unable to pay? The problem was that charging fees was illegal, and many excellent activities that were suggested by staff and children could not take place. My right hon. Friend's Bill will put that right.

Mr. Baker: I confirm what my hon. Friend has said. These are long-established practices and in some cases go back to the 1944 Act. I assure the House that in no way will I lay down a compulsory national system for charges.

Mr. Ashdown: Will the Minister say what steps he will take to impose controls on charging in opted-out centrally controlled schools to ensure that the practice of charging does not develop into de facto fee paying which some parents cannot afford?

Mr. Baker: I want to make it clear, as I have made it clear several times recently, that the grant-maintained schools will not be allowed to charge fees. As a result of the consultation process on charges which I shall launch, the grant-maintained schools will have to abide by the general principles laid down for the state-maintained schools.

Mr. Forman: To put this matter in perspective, can my right hon. Friend say what proportion of existing schools' expenditure is now met from charging and by how much he estimates this might go up under his proposal?

Mr. Baker: I cannot give the precise figure, but I shall seek it out and either reply in answer to a question or write to my hon. Friend. In our first discussions with local authorities we have discovered that there is a wide variety of practice between authorities and depends on the political complexion of the authorities. It appears that in one way or another all authorities charge for some extra activities. As I have said, we want to be guided to ensure that their freedom to continue with long-standing practice is preserved.

Mr. Leadbitter: Will the Secretary of State consider his previous statement to the effect that he is seeking discussions with local authorities so that they will be free to continue their long-standing practice? If he does not have other charges in mind, and if there has been a longstanding practice, what will the discussions be about?

Mr. Baker: The long-standing practice has been questioned legally in terms of whether certain charges can or cannot he made. I am responding to requests from local authorities and from local authority associations to clarify the position.

Mr. Key: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only universally unfair charges in education relate to school transport? Will he ensure that this is tackled in his new Bill, especially with regard to rural areas, so that the schools themselves, when they assume more financial responsibility, can be responsible for their own community bus services and mini-bus services?

Mr. Baker: This issue will be covered in the consultative document that I hope to issue next week on local financial management and the delegation of school budgets. The way that school transport is managed in future presents quite difficult problems.

Mr. Radice: Can the Secretary of State tell the House how his proposals to enable local authorities to charge for essentials such as music, sport and field trips are compatible with the commitment of the 1944 Act to free education? In this connection, has he noted the warnings by his right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), whom we are delighted to welcome to education questions, about the dangers of privatisation? I think that he was referring particularly to parents having to pay for books and basic equipment.

Mr. Baker: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no question of wishing to impose a system of national charges and certainly not for basic equipment. The standard of music in schools has never been higher and we are helping to sponsor, for example, a national choral competition next week at the Festival Hall. The success of choirs, school orchestras and individual performers derives from the existing practices of local authorities. I

want to ensure that no damage is done and I assure hon. Members that I shall do everything to maintain this honourable tradition. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen). It was a most distinguished speech, in which he said that the Government's education proposals are in the long tradition of Tory social policy.

Mr. Latham: Following his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), will my right hon. Friend give a clear commitment on charges for school transport? Is he aware that the present system militates against the Conservative policy of choice by denying to rural parents the opportunity to exercise that choice?

Mr. Baker: School transport is again largely at the discretion of local authorities—apart from certain national mandatory standards that they have to meet. As I said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), this is a most complicated matter and we shall consult widely about it with local authorities.

Hearing-impaired Children

Mr. Matthew Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any proposals for improving the education of children with impaired hearing.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): Special schools for children with impaired hearing are being reorganised in accordance with plans drawn up in consultation with local education authorities and the governing bodies of schools. Since April the in-service training of teachers to acquire qualifications to teach deaf children has been one of the national priority areas that attract 70 per cent. grant from my Department. We shall seek further ways to improve this area of education.

Mr. Taylor: Bearing in mind the tragic fact that two full-time permanent teaching posts will not be filled in Cornwall this September simply because there are not enough qualified teachers to fill them, will the Minister outline how many teachers he expects to complete such training during the 1987–88 academic year?

Mr. Dunn: I am concerned about the long-term supply of teachers of the deaf and about those who are concerned with teachers of the deaf. We have responded positively to the advice that we received some time ago from the Advisory Committee on the Supply and Education of Teachers. However, we shall take every step to monitor the situation, as suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

Dame Jill Knight: Will my hon. Friend confirm that fewer children are born today either with hearing defects or profoundly deaf? Will he assure the House that that fact will not mean that less money is spent in this important area of education?

Mr. Dunn: I agree with my hon. Friend and ban assure the House that we shall continue to ensure that local education authorities bear in mind the special needs of those with hearing difficulties to ensure that they are integrated into mainstream education as often as possible. I welcome my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Ashley: Is the Minister aware that the reading age of the average deaf school leaver is only that of a child of


8½years and that that is a shocking indictment of a failed education system, because those children lack learning rather than intelligence? Will he ensure that every deaf child has access to all forms of communication so that the most appropriate form can be used? Will he also ensure that every training course for teachers of the deaf has provision for the teaching of sign language, which is of great importance for the deaf child?

Mr. Dunn: This is a complicated issue, as the right hon. Gentleman will know. The methods of communication that are used by schools for hearing-impaired children are matters for individual local education authorities. However, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that officials from my Department are soon to meet representatives of the National Union of the Deaf to discuss a recent report issued by it. I am sure that the point that he raised today will be on the agenda of that meeting.

Mr. Stern: In the light of the gap that may possibly develop during the next couple of years as the ACSET proposals work through and the teaching gap that may emerge at schools such as Elmfield school in my constituency, will my hon. Friend confirm that full use will be made of the speech therapists who are available to the education authorities and the surrounding health authorities to help to fill that gap?

Mr. Dunn: I am ready to discuss that matter with counterparts at the Department of Health and Social Security, as suggested by my hon. Friend.

Ms. Quin: Following the question raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), may we at least have an assurance that in public examinations pupils who are deaf can have questions put to them in the sign language which, for many, is their native language? Does the Minister agree that if those facilities are not provided the hard work that has been done by many deaf pupils will be jeopardised?

Mr. Dunn: I thank the hon. Lady for her question on a serious point. I shall certainly undertake to raise that matter with the examination boards.

Polytechnics

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science by how many he intends to increase the numbers attending polytechnics.

Mr. Jackson: The Government are planning for a further increase of 50,000 in the number of higher education students by 1990. Actual numbers, and where they study, will depend on various factors, in particular on the recruitment decisions of individual institutions.

Mrs. Bottomley: Is that not a recognition of the vital part that polytechnics have come to play in the provision of higher education during the past two decades, especially in vocational and technological courses and their links with industry? What benefits does my hon. Friend expect from his proposals to reform the administration of polytechnics?

Mr. Jackson: As my hon. Friend has said, the polytechnics are booming and are educating more students than ever before. There were 220,000 students in 1985, which is 60,000 more than in 1979. Our new proposals for the governing of polytechnics and other colleges will

strengthen those institutions links with local business, ensure a strong and direct voice for the employers on the courses that are offered and the research that is undertaken, help to foster entrepreneurial attitudes and make available skills and experience to those institutions so that they can govern themselves more efficiently and achieve better value for money.

Mr. Madden: Is the Minister aware that the Iraqi embassy has written to the heads of all polytechnics and other education institutions asking for information about Iraqi students who are privately funded? Will he take urgent steps to ensure that no information is given to the Iraqi embassy about such students, and will he tell the Iraqi embassy that trying to intimidate those students who oppose the regime in Iraq is quite unacceptable?

Mr. Jackson: I was not aware of the circumstances to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but I am sure that the Foreign Office will have noted his points.

Mr. Wells: What steps is my hon. Friend taking to improve quality in the polytechnics that he is supporting so lavishly? Does he think that his new regime will expand the quality and the resources available to those institutions?

Mr. Jackson: The Government's aim is to improve quality in all institutions of higher education and the White Paper set out proposals for doing so. Institutions can play their own part by establishing systematic arrangements for staff training and appraisal. We look to the validating bodies and HMI, through its activities, to act as guardians of standards. As my hon. Friend knows, resources are decided annually.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: How much extra money will there be for the extra students? We welcome it, but we are worried that there will be insufficient money to pay for the expansions about which the Minister is talking.

Mr. Jackson: Resources are reviewed annually as an element of the public expenditure process and this is bound to take account of all the relevant factors, including the number of students in the system.

Mr. Thurnham: Will my hon. Friend confirm that selected institutions of higher education can expect to benefit equally from his welcome proposals?

Mr. Jackson: As my hon. Friend knows, the list of polytechnics and colleges that will benefit from these proposals was published in the White Paper. We shall look forward to legislating on that point later this year.

Dundee University

Mr. Ernie Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will provide additional resources to implement the academic plan for Dundee university.

Mr. Jackson: The distribution of funds between individual universities is a matter for the University Grants Committee, which is currently considering the academic plan and financial forecast drawn up by Dundee university in the light of new funding levels.

Mr. Ross: The Minister will know that on 18 June the UGC complimented Dundee university on getting its act together so quickly and providing this academic plan.


Does the Minister not see that he has the responsibility to ensure that the work that has been carried out so quickly and efficiently in Dundee is rewarded, and that an early reply comes to Dundee so that it knows exactly where it is going? Will he congratulate the new principal of Dundee university, who takes up his post in October, and wish the retiring principal, Adam Neville, a long and happy retirement?

Mr. Jackson: I pay tribute to the work of Adam Neville, who is retiring as principal. The future funding of Dundee university is a matter for the UGC. How it spends the funds allocated to it is a matter for Dundee university itself.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Has the Minister noted that no fewer than eight Scottish Members have today tabled questions about university funding, either at specific universities or in general terms? Therefore, does he accept that this reflects the widespread concern throughout Scotland about the future of Scottish university education? Can we expect an early statement on funding?

Mr. Jackson: We are running a national system of support for universities and this has been placed on a rational basis by the UGC so that funds are allocated on the basis of a standard unit of resource for each different course for teaching purposes, and with regard to the quality of research and other factors. That policy is applied across the board nationally, but inevitably and it has different implications for different institutions in different parts of the country.

Grant-maintained Schools

Mr. Colin Shepherd: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what will be the criteria for entry to the grant-maintained schools.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: Grant-maintained schools will retain the character they had as local authority schools. A comprehensive school will remain comprehensive. A selective school will remain selective. Admissions arrangements will have to be agreed with me. As with local authority schools, there will have to be criteria for choosing between applicants if a school is over-subscribed.

Mr. Shepherd: Although I welcome the extension of choice that this change is likely to bring, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend is aware that there is a certain amount of concern being expressed by parents who presently live within the catchment area of a specific comprehensive school that, in the event of that school becoming a grant-maintained school, their sons or daughters may be unable to attend that school? I ask my right hon. Friend whether he can assure those parents and the parents of a child not yet of an age to attend that school that they will be able to send their child to that school if they so choose?

Mr. Baker: I can say to my hon. Friend that, in determining the admission arrangements, we would want to follow the admission arrangements of the existing local education authority, especially as regards catchment areas, and also as regards existing policy for brothers and sisters to go to the schools that their elder brothers and sisters attended.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Lofthouse: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 July.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Lofthouse: Is the Prime Minister aware that the recent report from the Energy Select Committee agreed with the chief nuclear inspector that there was serious understaffing in the inspectorate, and that that was likely to cause a nuclear accident at Sellafield? Does the right hon. Lady agree that that understaffing is tantamount to putting people's lives at risk?

The Prime Minister: I am aware that there was understaffing in the Nuclear Inspectorate. I am aware that that was because some of the salaries offered were not sufficient, bearing in mind the alternative jobs available to those people. That matter has been dealt with and increased salaries offered to attract the full complement of staff that we want and need.

Mr. John Mark Taylor: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend take time during the course of her busy day to note the recent reduction in gas prices? Will my right hon. Friend comment on whether that reduction is a result of privatisation? Does she agree that it is certainly extremely good news for old-age pensioners?

The Prime Minister: Yes. Domestic gas prices have already gone down by 8 per cent. in real terms since 1983. The recent further reduction is very welcome. It is good news for everyone, especially for pensioners, and it owes a good deal to our privatisation policy.

Mr. Kinnock: In view of the strong hostility towards the poll tax from members of the Prime Minister's party in the House, and from diehard supporters outside the House—[Interruption.]. In view of that strong hostility, is the right hon. Lady for turning?

The Prime Minister: We considered this matter very carefully. The present system is unfair and discredited, and I believe that the right hon. Gentleman agrees with that. I noted from his own manifesto that he was going to abolish the Rates Act, and I noticed that he intended to replace it with capital valuation and to continue revaluations. We believe that the proposals we have put up have been very widely considered and are the best possible for the way forward.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the principle of the community charge is absolutely right, but, before it is introduced, should not the total cost of education be transferred to central Government?

The Prime Minister: No. I see no possibility of transferring the entire cost of a service to the taxpayer and leaving its total administration to the local authorities. There is no way in which the Department of Education


and Science could take over the whole administration of education, and nor should it. To take it away from the local authority under those circumstances would be to reduce its expenditure temporarily. Very soon many councils would put up that expenditure and we would all be left paying far more taxes and far more local charges.

Mr. Steel: Can the Prime Minister confirm what the Secretary of State for the Environment said on the radio this morning about the poll tax, which is that it will cost twice as much to collect as the rates? Does that calculation include the cost of paying back the tax to those on supplementary benefit?

The Prime Minister: I happened to hear my right hon. Friend on the radio this morning—I do not always have it on—and he explained that that was because it would be collected from a considerably larger number of people. If one of the problems is that the base of the rates is too small, inevitably, in the interests of wider equity, the base of the community charge will be wider and it will be payable by more people.

Mr. Onslow: In her continuing discussions with other European Heads of Government about the cost of the Community budget, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there are a great many European taxpayers who are just as disenchanted with the ridiculous costs of the common agricultural policy as the taxpayers in this country and that they see her Government's fight for fundamental CAP reform as being as much in Europe's interest as in Britain's?

The Prime Minister: It is in Europe's interests as well as our own. It is also in the interests of Europe's consumers, because the original CAP was meant to strike a fair balance between the rights of producers and the rights of consumers. It would also release considerable resources which, if they were made available, could go to creating more jobs in the Community. Therefore, it is in the interests of the whole of Europe as well as ourselves.

Mr. Rees: If the poll tax is so marvellous for Scotland, England and Wales, why not introduce it in Northern Ireland?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman has occasion to be well aware, local government in Northern Ireland is not able to get back to a normal basis, and he knows the reason why.

Mr. Atkinson: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her offical engagements for Tuesday 7 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Atkinson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, contrary to the misleading impression given by the Opposition, the proposed community charge will not affect the right to vote and that it is a policy upon which every Conservative candidate fought the general election?

The Prime Minister: Yes. It has always been made clear that there will be a separate register for the community charge and it will not affect the right to vote in any way. I believe that the way forward that we have proposed is the best one. It will give greater local accountability and, in the matter of the business rate, it will help many northern cities a great deal,.

Mr. Harry Ewing: When the Prime Minister sees Sid, will she tell him that she and her Government spent £40

million of taxpayers' money last year telling the people about the politically motivated sale of British Gas and that last night she introduced legislation forbidding all local authorities in Britain from spending ratepayers' money to give their people any information at all? What is she, a democrat, or a dictator?

The Prime Minister: The sale of British Gas was a good thing for all the people of this country, both in terms of the receipt of capital sums that came into the Exchequer and in terms of the future efficiency of British Gas. I believe that it was money well spent.

Mr. Amess: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Amess: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a widespread concern throughout the country about the number of late abortions that are being carried out? Does she recognise that, with advances in medical science, the stage at which a child is capable of being born alive is being reduced all the time? When will the House give effective protection to the unborn child?

The Prime Minister: I fully understand my hon. Friend's concern about this matter. He will be aware that administratively we have done all we can to see that abortions are not carried out after 24 weeks. We have circulated a report from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists to all hospitals and we have made it a condition for the licensing of private clinics that abortions are not carried out after 24 weeks. Therefore, we have done everything we can. I do not see the possibility of Government legislation at the moment, but private Members' legislation is appropriate for that.

Mr. McCusker: Will the Prime Minister find a few minutes today to reflect upon the reasons that she gave for signing the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which are that she believed that it would bring peace, stability and reconciliation to the Province? In view of the fact that the situation has deteriorated to the level where someone is being killed almost every other day in Northern Ireland, what evidence has she to show that after 20 months any progress is being made towards those desirable objectives?

The Prime Minister: We are getting increased cooperation across the border, as the hon. Gentleman is aware. I had hoped, when I saw the hon. Gentleman rising, that he would mention that some of his right hon. and hon. Friends might wish to come and talk in the light of a recent report that has been published. I am sorry that my hopes were not upheld. If he wishes to come and talk, he will be very welcome.

Mr. Butterfill: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Butterfill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only effective way to achieve urban regeneration in our inner cities is to have a much greater involvement of private industry and capital? In that connection, does she agree that the remarks made yesterday in the House by the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) were most unhelpful and regrettable?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that while we can do a good deal with regard to housing, education, clearing derelict land and many other things in inner cities, we cannot succeed in achieving our aim unless we get more private enterprise into the areas, unless the local authorities and people welcome private enterprise, and the people are motivated to do more for themselves. That is a constructive way forward. I agree with my hon. Friend that anything inflammatory is destructive of that objective.

Mr. Boyes: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Boyes: Is the Prime Minister concerned, as many of us are, about the growing level of child abuse, as shown in data produced by the National Children's Home and from many local authorities'? If so, what steps is she taking to ensure that local authorities are adequately staffed, funded and equipped to deal with this tragic, if regrettably over-publicised, subject?

The Prime Minister: I do not believe that there is necessarily a need for more staffing or more money to deal with this matter. I believe much more that sensitive use must be made of the available powers.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the immense dissatisfaction in the country with the services provided by British Telecom? When does she expect her policies on competition to be extended into that area so that good telephone services can be provided in the home, and other companies can provide telephone boxes that actually work?

The Prime Minister: OFTEL's 1986 survey found that British Telecom's quality of service had been at least constant and perhaps improving over the past few years. British Telecom recognises that there is some way to go and its high investment, running at more than 35 per cent. above pre-privatisation levels, will improve the service further. There is some competition from Mercury, but the service that we get now is a great deal better than that which we received before and I believe that it is British Telecom's intention to continue to improve it.

Mr. Redmond: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Redmond: During her busy day, will the Prime Minister agree to veto any proposals to place VAT on children's clothing and shoes?

The Prime Minister: Is the hon. Gentleman asking that if the EEC comes in with a proposal to change our capacities—[Interruption.] If he is asking about those particular things, I repeat exactly what I have said——

Mr. Cryer: Veto.

The Prime Minister: Veto is a European Community word.
I will repeat precisely what I said during the election campaign. We shall continue to have zero rating on food, and that is crucial. The question then arises about electricity, gas and fuel. It is not our intention to put VAT on those. If anyone tried to put VAT on children's clothes and shoes, they would never, never get it through the House. I repeat that.

Mr. Yeo: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Yeo: Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the decision taken by certain teachers to take further strike action'? Does she agree that that decision brings more shame on the teaching profession and its only certain consequence will be to damage the interests and education of the children in the schools affected?

The Prime Minister: I totally agree. The teachers have had a very fair, indeed generous, deal from the taxpayer in pay increases. They know that the present arrangements are only temporary. We are trying to achieve permanent negotiating arrangements as soon as possible. I agree with my hon. Friend that children have rights as well—a right to a good education and the right to have teachers who set an example to them.

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. McCrindle: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the financial controls operated by the Civil Aviation Authority over tour operators remain adequate to minimise the risk of their financial failure? As this matter is of such interest to millions of people at this time of year, will my right hon. Friend consider having a word with the CAA's chairman to reassure herself and the House that the controls remain adequate for the purposes for which they were installed?

The Prime Minister: As far as I am aware, they are. I know that my hon. Friend is concerned about recent events. I shall therefore consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport with a view to meeting my hon. Friend's request.

The Scotsman Publications Ltd.

Mr. Alistair Darling: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the current industrial dispute at The Scotsman Publications Ltd, Edinburgh, and the future status of The Scotsman as a national newspaper following the dismissal of all editorial staff this morning.
This is a specific issue. It concerns two titles—The Scotsman and the Evening News in Edinburgh. It concerns an industrial dispute which is not about pay or new technology but about the status of The Scotsman. It is an important issue because The Scotsman is one of Scotland's national newspapers, now in its 170th year. The issue is one of standards, coverage and the reduction of status. It is important because any damage to quality or the demise of The Scotsman would be a severe blow to Scottish journalism and the Scottish people. The Secretary of State for Scotland appointed an emissary to meet the management, just as I met with them, to ascertain what advice we could offer to bring about the end of this dispute.
The matter is urgent because all editorial staff were dismissed this morning. They received a terse letter from the editor, and it appears that management are determined to impose a settlement on their terms alone. As I said, the representative of the Secretary of State and I met the management. Although we were told that there was a chance of resolving the dispute, it now seems clear that management have no intention of negotiating. Instead they are engineering a confrontation. In short, we are at the brink of what could be a catastrophe for Scottish journalism.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the crisis at The Scotsman Publications Ltd.
I have listened with great care to the hon. Member, but I regret that I do not consider that the matter which he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Members' Dress

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. No one has ever accused me of being a tailor's dummy or, I hope, any other sort of dummy. The only chance of my appearing in the magazine "Tailor and Cutter" is as an awful warning to someone else. In fact, on one occasion in Committee I was given a severe instruction by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) to improve the standard of my dress and put on my jacket. My dress then was of a much higher standard than some of the bush shirts and jungle kit that we have seen in the House recently.
Was my hon. Friend wrong in giving me that instruction, or have standards of dress in the House of Commons been changed and, if so, on what authority and how? Should standards of dress within the Chamber be lower than in Committee? I ask only for information. I have no particular views—in fact, I should be happy to come in here in swimming trunks if that were in order.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: I shall deal with one point at a time. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not do what he has just proposed. He was obviously not here when the matter was raised last week, so I shall say again to him and the House that the Chamber is air conditioned, and I feel that hon. Members should wear jackets and ties. That contributes to the dignity of our proceedings.

Later—

Sir William Clark: Further to the point of order made by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). In view of the advice that you, Mr. Speaker, have given in relation to dress and the wearing of jackets and ties, may we take it that if an hon. Member turns up and has not taken your advice he is unlikely to catch your eye?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that I should disclose what goes on in my mind when I call hon. Members to speak in debate.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. You made a statement that worried me. You said that you would not wish to reflect on what goes on in your mind when you decide whether to call hon. Members. Certainly I would not wish to come here sporting a sweater, but I hope that the way in which hon. Members are clad in no way influences you in your decision on whether to call them. We are entitled to an assurance to that effect.

Mr. Speaker: I repeat that the Chair has never given reasons for calling hon. Members in a debate. I try to be as fair as I can to hon. Members on all sides of the House.

Register of Members' Interests

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to seek your guidance. You will recall that a motion passed by the House on 12 June 1975 stated:
any interest disclosed in a copy of the Register of Members' Interests shall he regarded as sufficient disclosure for the purpose of taking part in any Division of the House or in any of its Committees".—[Official Report, 12 June 1975; Vol. 893, c. 802.)
You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that last night we discussed the Local Government Bill, which, in clause 2, lists a number of specific privatisation activities including such matters as cleaning services. The resolution of 12 June 1975 cannot be adhered to, because the register for this Parliament is not compiled. Every hon. Member will have received a letter in which the registrar clearly gives a period of four weeks before the register is compiled. The register in the Library belongs to the last Parliament—there is a note to that effect—and a new register is awaiting compilation and publication. Therefore, the resolution of 1975 cannot be accepted for the purpose of declaring an interest when hon. Members vote.
You will know, Mr. Speaker, that several Tory Members in the last Parliament had a direct pecuniary interest—an interest, in the words of "Erskine May".
not in common with the rest of his Majesty's subjects".
Those hon. Members were lining their pockets with extra fees from parliamentary adviserships to various cleaning companies and companies offering services in the public sector. 'They therefore had a direct pecuniary interest.
I believe that when a vote is to take place on legislation such as the Local Government Bill, those with such interests should not be allowed to vote pending the publication of the register. I would say that they should not vote for all time, but I am a very tolerant and reformist sort of person. The resolution passed in 1975 was specifically for the purpose of ensuring that, when hon. Members voted, people outside the House knew of their pecuniary interests. [Interruption.]
Conservative Members may shout, but I remind them that one Conservative Member—the then hon. Member for Bournemouth, West, Mr. John Cordle—was forced to resign because he had not declared a financial interest.
The matter is important for something that you, Mr. Speaker, regard as important—the honour of the House. All hon. Members are supposed to be honourable. Those who have a financial interest, and who vote in such a manner that they benefit, are embarking on dishonourable conduct, and I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to prevent them from doing so.

Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you respond to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), will you bear in mind that, on the basis of his argument, any hon. Member who had an interest in, for example, Lloyd's, or in a trade union, or who received any pecuniary or other benefits or support from a trade union would be barred from voting on any matter relating to membership of a trade union or any other organisation?

Mr. David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Was not the Register of Members' Interests created because questions were being asked about the manner in which Members of Parliament

were involved on a commercial basis, thus bringing into question the standing of the House? The register did not arise a long time ago; it originated in the relatively recent past because of the manner in which the press—rightly, in my view—exposed the goings on of one or two people. As I understand it, the general view is that this Parliament is far cleaner and more honest than Parliaments abroad. We have a reputation.
Taking up the point so rightly and forcefully made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), is it not unfortunate that on the public business last night, and without a register of interests, Conservative Members could vote when there was no denying the fact that they would gain financially? You should bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, that this is not simply a reflection on one or two Conservative Members. In my submission, far more important is the standing of this House. Surely we do not want to go back to the situation that existed before there was a Register of Members' Interests. We should try to ensure that this House is held in high esteem, but it will not be if people vote in the Lobbies in order to line their own pockets.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It concerns the general question to which I referred last week, relating to pecuniary interests and the fact that on 24 March 1981 you made a statement to the effect that Members of Parliament with pecuniary interests should be careful not to vote. When I raised this with the Prime Minister, she referred to pecuniary interests in relation to Members' pay. That is very different in view of the fact that Members' pay relates to all Members of Parliament and not to a selected few who would benefit from the Local Government Bill, just as they did from the Lloyd's Bill that was discussed on 24 March 1981.
If a pecuniary interest as defined by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) is not for the common good but is for the good of certain individuals, it would seem to me that you should again look at your ruling in the context of the Local Government Bill which will result in some Tory Members of Parliament making substantial sums of money, plus the fact that under the poll tax proposals many more would benefit and large sums of money would be involved.
Taking that into account, I believe that you should look again at the statement you made on 24 March 1981, because it is pretty clear that in this Parliament there will be several occasions on which Tory Members, in particular, and Cabinet Ministers will be lining their pockets as a result of the introduction of legislation.

Mr. Speaker: Let me clear up this matter for the benefit of the whole House. I understand that considerable progress has been made with the Register of Members' Interests but that it will not be possible to publish it for some time yet. However, that does not affect the right of Members to vote on matters of public policy. They should of course declare any interest in the normal way if they speak in a debate.
These matters were raised last night with the Deputy Speaker, who correctly pointed out that the votes of hon. Members are not disqualified by virtue of a personal pecuniary interest if the debate is on a matter of state policy. This situation occurs frequently—for example, Members who are farmers are not disqualified from voting when orders dealing with farming subsidies are voted upon


by the House. Therefore, there is a clear distinction between private Bills and matters of state policy. However, I again remind hon. Members that the honour of the House is involved and that the normal rules apply—that is to say, in debate one should declare an interest, although during Question Time it is not necessary provided the interest is recorded in the Register of Members' Interests.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you find time to remind hon. Members, particularly Conservative Members, that if they intend to refer to another hon. Member in a speech, or, indeed, at Question Time, it is a matter of good manners and courtesy to give that hon. Member notice? The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) failed to do so when he referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) this afternoon. Perhaps good manners could prevail on the Conservative Benches occasionally.

Mr. Speaker: It is as well to remind the whole House of that convention.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely it is not necessary to give an hon. Member notice that one intends to refer to him if he is sitting in his place.

Mr. Speaker: That is correct. However, I hope that the conventions of this House will prevail. It is a good convention that if an hon. Member intends to refer to another hon. Member he should give him notice.

SECOND DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS

Ordered,
That Miss Betty Boothroyd be Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.—[Mr. Wakeham.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the Value Added Tax (Construction of Buildings) (No. 2) Order 1987 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Pharmaceutical Qualifications (EEC Recognition) Order 1987 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Durant.]

Northern Ireland Act 1974

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): I beg to move,
That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 30th April, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
I welcome this opportunity, early in the new Parliament, to discuss the affairs of Northern Ireland, and I hope that it will be possible for a considerable number of hon. Members from Northern Ireland to take part in the debate.
At the start it would be right to recognise the fact that one former Member of the House who was a most regular attender will not be taking part. I refer, of course, to the former right hon. Member for South Down. While the House knows—it is no secret—that I had disagreements with him, no one can be ignorant of the fact that we have lost a formidable parliamentarian. He was a man of deep commitment to the House, a respected constituency Member and a person who, whatever his views, was always noted outside the House for his personal courtesy. When I rose at the Dispatch Box I used to be conscious of his eagle eye as he waited for a slip—a legislative inaccuracy or perhaps a sentence ending with a preposition; Ministers were always conscious that they were under the closest scrutiny when he was present.
Against that background and without entering into electoral results, I welcome the new hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) on an entirely personal basis. I understand that he may be seeking to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure that the House will be interested in his contribution.
On a personal basis, may I say that I am pleased to have the opportunity to move the order. It is no great secret that I expressed to the Prime Minister my willingness to resume my responsibilities, if she asked me to do so, after the election. I did so because I wanted to play some part in the Province at this time, with the need for continuity and for a determined effort after the sad period of non-dialogue that has just taken place. I was anxious to see whether we could have a more productive period.

Mr. David Winnick: Will the Secretary of State deal with the point raised by the Unionist side during Prime Minister's Question Time, which he may or may not have heard, which was that since there has been no reduction in the amount of terrorism, the Anglo-Irish agreement has been a failure? Is it not a fact of life, and was it not understood from the beginning when the agreement came into force, that violence and terrorism from the IRA or from the other side—but mainly from the IRA—will not end until the terrorists stop their activities? Is it not foolishness and mischief-making to believe that the position has got worse as a result of the agreement?

Mr. King: I shall be saying something about security in the Province, but I certainly accept the hon. Gentleman's statement that there was no question that simply by signing an agreement and closer co-operation a magic wand would be provided whereby terrorists would pack up their tents and walk away. Everyone who knows Northern Ireland knows that that is the position.
The debate and the order for the extension of the period of direct rule follow almost immediately the conclusion of


the debate on the Loyal Address. It might be for the convenience of the House, and especially hon. Members from the Province who were unable to participate in that debate, if I reminded the House of the background to the debate. The Queen's Speech said:
In Northern Ireland, my Government will seek an agreed basis on which greater responsibility can be devolved to representatives of the people. They will work unremittingly for the defeat of terrorism. They will build upon the constructive relations established with the Republic of Ireland in security and other matters.
I shall comment, first, on security and the economic position in the Province and then I shall say a word about the political position, as I see it.
We said in the Queen's Speech that we would work unremittingly for the defeat of terrorism, and I give the clearest assurance to the House that that is our absolute determination. If we are to realise the full potential of the Province and of the entire island of Ireland in terms of jobs and the quality of life of all the people in the island, terrorism must be defeated, because that, above all, damages the employment prospects of young people and the economic prospects of everyone in the island of Ireland. There is no question that that approach has the overwhelming support of people not just in the Province but throughout the island of Ireland.
I noticed that most offensive phrase used by a certain Sinn Fein member, who said:
Who will object if with Armalite and ballot box we take power?
It is significant to note what the achievement of that ballot-box approach is at its maximum, even if one accepts that every person who votes for Sinn Fein is endorsing violence. That is a wild assumption. Only 3 per cent. of the population of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland support Sinn Fein; 97 per cent. support parties which are totally opposed to violence. It is also interesting to note that in the election in Northern Ireland, support for Sinn Fein fell by just under 20 per cent.
It is against that background that I noted a recent editorial in the Irish News in Northern Ireland. It talked about the Nationalist position and about the obscenity of the IRA and its recent murders. The editorial said:
These people do not kill for us. They do not kill for the Irish people and no mandate has been given to them in this island to do what they do.
Against the recent background and the publication of the Sinn Fein document "For Freedom, Justice, Peace", I could not help noticing that four of the most recent recipients of its policy of freedom, justice and peace in Londonderry were a 61-year old woman, a 33-year old man, a five-year old girl, and a three-year old boy, who, in the ultimate obscenity of the Sinn Fein announcement and the IRA statement that appeared later, were casualties because apparently the security forces did not observe the procedures that the terrorists expected them to observe in clearing an area before a bomb went off.
The IRA does not just cause direct casualties; it deliberately inflames and incites sectarian tension. One can see it at present. Anybody who has the inkling of an understanding of Northern Ireland knows that this is the time of the year when it is easiest to incite tension and hatred. The effect of the IRA's action is often to arouse the vicious evil of Loyalist terrorist groups as well. It is despicable for the IRA to provoke the Loyalist extremist terrorist groups and for those groups all too readily to

respond. That is why the defeat of terrorism is our top priority. It must be defeated. It must be fought within the law.
We are determined to maintain a high and effective level of security force activity. If I reaffirm briefly the recognition of the whole House for the debt that we owe to the security forces for the work that they do to protect life and limb in the Province, it is because I know that I have the support of the whole House. While I pay respect to their achievements, we know that at present we face a particularly vicious and renewed campaign of terrorism.
If one looks at the cold and sad statistics of casualties—even if one recognises that they include the victims of the internal feud in the Irish National Liberation Army, the terrorists who were shot in the attack on Loughgall and the two terrorists who apparently killed themselves while conducting terrorist activities—the level of casualties obviously is far too high. We face a particularly vicious and callous campaign at present. As I made clear in a debate at the end of the last Parliament, this is being met by the security forces adopting certain measures in support of and in addition to the measures that we were taking before. I recognise the achievements of the security forces in difficult circumstances and I recognise also the steadfastness that the community is showing at present in the face of that campaign, determined as it is to incite greater fear and hatred. I think it right that the House should recognise that.
We shall continue our work unremittingly and, in that respect, I welcome the arrival of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office. With his considerable experience in the Ministry of Defence and security, there will be no loss of momentum and an absolute determination to carry forward our work for the defeat of terrorism. We shall be determined to do everything that we can to deny the terrorists the resources on which they depend, whether they be money, recruits, weapons or explosives. We shall not hesitate to bring to that work the closest possible co-operation with every nation in the world that can help us in the battle to obstruct the supply lines and withhold resources from the terrorists. Most importantly in that respect, we shall work as closely as we can with the Government of the Republic of Ireland in our determination to eliminate the scourge of terrorism from Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland and bring the guilty men to justice.
The House knows the bald statistics of the economic situation and the serious problem that we face with unemployment. The current rate of unemployment is 18·4 per cent. against 10·8 per cent. for Great Britain. We know how much the search for jobs is hindered and handicapped by the evil of terrorism. We are aware of the deterrent that it can be to investors and the problems that it causes to the expansion of existing companies. If I gave the House a brief summary of the economic position, I would not conceal from it that we face serious problems in shipbuilding, as does the western world generally and, indeed, the entire world. The problems that are faced by Harland and Wolff and by British Shipbuilders are those that are faced throughout western Europe. These are real problems, and especially for Northern Ireland because of the importance of the shipyard to the Province.
The difficulty of agricultural surpluses is having a significant impact on the Province. Given the importance of agriculture to the entire Province, it is a matter of great concern. We are anxious to ensure that in the deliberations


on the common agricultural policy and on any measures that exist within the United Kingdom arrangements for agriculture we do whatever we can to help agriculture in the Province through this difficult time.
It would be a great mistake if the real achievement of so many firms and companies in Northern Ireland were not recognised. Having had chances to see industry and having worked in industry all my life before coming to this place, I was surprised, as a new Secretary of State, to find how many outstanding, highly profitable and successful companies are operating in the Province that are a match for anything elsewhere in the United Kingdom and Europe. I recognise the new investments that come into Dupont at Maydown, Fords at Dunmurry and to STC in Monkstown. I recognise also that at GEC at Larne we sought to help the company through a difficult ordering pattern. I hope that that assistance will see it through to a more successful future. In addition, many of the companies that operate in the linen, textile and clothing sector are doing exceptionally well and reporting good order books. The efforts of the Industrial Development Board and the Local Enterprise Development Unit are leading to an increase in the number of jobs that are available and the attraction of a substantial amount of new investment into the Province.
We are anxious to ensure that Government support in ways in which it can be most helpful is applied effectively, and I believe that in training, employment creation and investment support we have a fine and effective range of measures. I still believe that more local initiative is of enormous importance for Northern Ireland and I applaud the initiative of the Northern Ireland chambers of commerce and industry in their support for more local purchasing. It is entirely their own initiative and it is designed to ascertain how Northern Ireland can make its own greater contribution to its economy. The Under-Secretary of State with responsibilities for industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), has today held a press conference on the pathfinder initiative, which he has launched, which is directed very much to ascertaining how we can stimulate more and more local initiative to demonstrate how Northern Ireland can tackle even more effectively some of the problems of its economy.
I have seen enough now of Northern Ireland to understand that there is a great opportunity for a transformation of the economy if only we can see the scourge of terrorism removed and the achievement of greater confidence in the economy and greater political stability. There is no doubt that all these factors—I would not wish to enter into an argument about which has been the more damaging to investment and jobs in the Province—will play a significant part in the future of the Province. Terrorism has been major scourge but the absence of political progress has been a major handicap as well.
It is against that background that I turn to the direct issues that affect the form of government for the Province. The issues are set out clearly in the order, about which there is particular interest. The order is the result of the Northern Ireland Act 1974, and the House will recall that the Act was introduced to dissolve the Northern Ireland Assembly, to make temporary provision for the government of Northern Ireland and to provide for the election and holding of a constitutional convention. This

is the 13th time that an extension of the temporary provisions has been moved, and in so doing I am seeking to extend the period of direct rule. The 1974 Act provided for the election of a convention for the purpose of considering what provision for the government of Northern Ireland would be likely to command the most widespread acceptance throughout the community there. The problem that was identified in 1974 is precisely that which we face now for the 13th time around, and that is the challenge that is before us.
The Gracious Speech made it clear that the Government
will seek an agreed basis on which greater responsibility can be devolved to representatives of the people.
I should like to set out my views on how we should proceed. We need to be realistic about the present position. It is obvious that we must start from where we are, and in doing so recognise, first, the strengths and weaknesses of the present position. I hope that I carry my predecessors with me in trying honestly and sincerely to provide fair and impartial government for the Province. British Ministers do their best, quite often in difficult circumstances. The system has many defects and I dislike it because it does not provide for an adequate input for local people in Northern Ireland to enable them to have a real say in their affairs.

Mr. James Molyneaux: The Secretary of State should not be feeling too sensitive because he happens to be a member of the British Government who are governing Northern Ireland. The real complaint of the people of Northern Ireland is that the 16 Members of Northern Ireland constituencies who come to this place to represent Northern Ireland cannot play any effective part in legislating for Northern Ireland. That is not because a British Secretary of State happens to be in control of Northern Ireland. As we shall see later this evening, the methods are defective.

Mr. King: At this stage, I should not like to go further down that road, but I shall say a word about that aspect, and it may help the right hon. Gentleman. I am conscious that, in some ways, the Province has more distinct political traditions and structures than exist elsewhere in the United Kingdom, yet there is less democratic involvement of people in their own affairs. Of course I accept—this goes some way to recognising the point that the right hon. Gentleman made—that direct rule involves a legislative process which cannot easily give adequate time for consideration to Northern Ireland primary legislation.
I talked about a lack of involvement. There is also the problem of local government. Macrory advised that strategic services—for example, roads, town and country planning and water—would be better in single Province-wide authorities, but that was envisaged within the context of a Northern Ireland regional government. When he put that view forward, it certainly was not envisaged that it should be operated by central Government in the way it operates at present. The effect of the loss of the Assembly and the Executive was that Northern Ireland lost any chance to have a serious involvement in overseeing local services.
Those are far from ideal situations. Certainly, it is against that background that the House may understand that we are willing to consider changes in arrangements to determine whether it is possible to agree ways of improving the difficulties that we perceive.

Mr. Ian Gow: In view of what my right hon. Friend has said, and since he wishes to have greater involvement of the people in Northern Ireland local government, it is difficult for some of his hon. Friends to understand why he has abandoned the policies that were set out in the 1979 manifesto. In that manifesto we said that, in the absence of devolved government, we would seek to set up a regional council of councils with widely devolved powers over local matters. Why has my right hon. Friend abandoned that policy?

Mr. King: I am in some difficulty on that point. I certainly did not abandon the policy; it was abandoned well before I arrived in my present position. With great respect to my hon. Friend, he was probably closer to some involvement in the matter at the time. I am not sure exactly what the reasons were for its abandonment. I do not wish to make any unhelpful comments on the matter. My hon. Friend knows the situation. That policy was abandoned—it was not in our later proposals—and an alternative approach was adopted by Mr. Jim Prior when he was Secretary of State.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I interrupt my right hon. Friend to pick up the point that he made about the lack of local representation of political parties in Northern Ireland in their own Province and in the way in which they are governed. If my right hon. Friend looks around the Chamber he will see representatives of nearly all political parties. Therefore, we have here a microcosm of what could be in Northern Ireland. He could set up a Northern Ireland Select Committee straight away and give Northern Ireland hon. Members a say in the way in which their Province is governed. Will he consider that?

Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He raised one possible approach. I shall not endorse or accept any one approach. I strongly believe that we need to discuss a number of ideas that might be helpful, any one of which is preferable to non-dialogue and a refusal or inability to talk. A number of ideas—I shall not rehearse them in the House—involve problems and difficulties. I give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance that they must be looked at seriously and constructively. The point that my hon. Friend raised is only part of the issue. Of course, we must address how such a structure would operate in meeting concerns on a widely acceptable basis. That issue must be addressed.

Mr. John Hume: Would the Secretary of State agree that powers were removed from local government in Northern Ireland in the first place because they were seriously and substantially abused and that the behaviour of local authorities in the past 18 months does not give reason for any confidence to assume that they will behave any more responsibly in the future?

Mr. King: I can understand why the hon. Gentleman said that. It is absolutely clear that the House will not endorse any arrangements that are not seen to be fair. It is not a matter of trying to brainwash or persuade me. At the end of the day, any new arrangements will have to carry the support of the House. The House will not support anything that it believes does not establish fair and effective protection for the minority. Those are the tests that we shall have to pass. None of us is an entirely free agent. Those are the problems that will have to be addressed.
One other aspect of the present situation gives rise to concern. It arises through the Anglo-Irish Agreement and,

in particular, the Inter-Governmental Conference. The arrangement gives the minority community an increased confidence that their interests are carefully considered and given proper weight. At the same time, I have to accept that Unionists certainly consider themselves to be excluded from the process and that they consider that their interests are not given proper weight. In this connection, it is of course true that, under the terms of the agreement, we are due to have a review of the working of the conference next year. I am well aware of the feelings of many people in the Province about aspects of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Some reflect profound differences of view, but some reflect clear misunderstandings about aspects of the agreement, the conference and its work. Having said that, although I understand the concerns, it is obviously important for everybody who cares about the future of the Province to seek an end to the period of non-dialogue, which has damaged the image of the Province. Some Unionists and, indeed, others, have stated or implied that they have a vision of arrangements for the government and administration of Northern Ireland which would be more widely acceptable—acceptable to Unionists and nationalists alike—than these.
Of course, I understand why, in advance of the election, many people did not wish to advance their positions and perhaps waited to see what the outcome of the election would be. Now that the election is over, it is time to look forward to see whether there are any opportunities for more constructive discussions. It is in that spirit that I note the submission of an abridged version of the task force report to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). Obviously, I shall wish to study that report. I hope that it might contribute to a movement towards dialogue in which, in due course, the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland can discuss ideas with the Government. It is in everybody's interests that talking must resume soon. I do not say that only in respect of the Unionist position. One would also look for a constructive response from constitutional Nationalist parties.
I recognise the clear distinction that is drawn between the need for exploratory discussions to see whether it is possible for anything approaching talks to take place. There is a case for such discussions to start without prejudice or precondition. It would be sensible for them not to start with any great expectations or necessarily at any high level. They should determine whether, through initial discussions at whatever level, it is possible to move to more serious talks or negotiations. I want to make it quite clear on behalf of the Government that in that process we are ready to play whatever role that the parties would feel helpful. We are ready to listen to constructive ideas from any quarter and without preconditions. It is in the interests of all the people in the Province for the talking to start soon.

Mr. Molyneaux: On reflection, does the Secretary of State not feel that it might be wiser to use the first term that he used, which was "without prejudice", than to say "without preconditions" because there is a difference?

Mr. King: The right hon. Gentleman may accept whichever of the terms he finds suitable. We are ready to embark on an exploratory process on whatever basis seems most convenient to those concerned in terms of the level


at which discussions might take place. It is not a question of laying down anything in advance. At this stage we do not even know where we are and we need to explore the ground to see what might or might not be possible. Against that background I am trying to show the right hon. Gentleman that the Government are willing to respond if the will is there.

Mr. Tony Baldry: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if the Anglo-Irish agreement is to succeed we must all have confidence that the Republic of Ireland will honour the undertakings that it has given? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that as far as he is aware there is no basis for the suggestion in some Sunday newspapers that the Republic will not honour the extradition arrangements to which it has committed itself? If the Republic does not honour that commitment it would cause considerable concern to those hon. Members who support the Anglo-Irish Agreement and who are confident that the present Government of the Republic are as committed to the agreement as their predecessors.

Mr. King: I know of no basis for any suggestion that the commitment will not be implemented. I certainly confirm that we attach great importance to that. As I said, I am moving for the 13th time an interim period extension order. That might persuade many people that the problems of Northern Ireland are totally insoluble and that there is no prospect of any improvement. Sadly, one can think of many corners of the world where the problems seem totally insoluble.
Despite the problems and difficulties that are easily recognised in the Province, there is a growing recognition that things need not be as they are. About 97 per cent. of the people in the island of Ireland, including a substantial majority of the minority in Northern Ireland support the right of a Northern Ireland majority to determine its own future. The majority of Unionists support equality of treatment and opportunity for the minority community. The majority says it recognises the importance of good relations with the Republic of Ireland and recognises that, undoubtedly and in whatever form, there is an Irish dimension. Given those elements, Northern Ireland is not the insoluble problem that some people represent it to be.
There are good components in the situation and if we can build upon them they will provide the opportunity for real progress. That is what the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland now want in a new approach. Clearly, there is a challenge to all hon. Members and to all people who care about the future of the Province to see that such a new approach is made. In that spirit I commend the order to the House. Of course it is not an end in itself because it is the most interim of orders, but it will provide the opportunity for real progress to be made.

Mr. Peter Archer: I am happy to begin by endorsing a number of the propositions by the Secretary of State. First, we are pleased to see him back in his high office—if it had to be someone from the Conservative party. I can go no further than that. Secondly, I record our pleasure at seeing right hon. and hon. Gentlemen from the Unionist parties in their places. I hope that they will continue to participate in our debates.

We may not always agree, but I hope that they will accept that we genuinely want to see them participating in constitutional politics.
Thirdly, we look forward with pleasure to the maiden speech of the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady). I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that it is no reflection on him when I say that I agree with the Secretary of State about his predecessor. However frequently we may have disagreed with him personally, he will be missed in the House. Fourthly, I agree with the Secretary of State that an island on which people can live in peace can concentrate on the interests that they share rather than those which divide them and are free to live their lives as they wish cannot be achieved by the politics of division and recrimination. Those things certainly cannot be achieved by way of corpses and broken families.
Before I endorse any more of the propositions by the Secretary of State, I should like to return to what he said about the subject that we are debating. That is whether the present arrangements for direct rule should continue for another 12 months, or at least until the House decides to change them. There can only be one answer to that: if Northern Ireland is to be governed, the present arrangements must continue until there is a measure of agreement about an alternative mode of government. That does not imply that we are happy with direct rule. I doubt whether any party in the House or any hon. Member would argue for direct rule as a first choice. Perhaps for some people the principal argument for direct rule is that it does not represent the first choice of anybody else. We have all frequently ventilated its shortcomings and I do not propose to delay the House with a further recital of them.
Northern Ireland is governed by a Government who electorally have nothing to fear from alienating people in Northern Ireland and nothing to gain by pleasing them. If every hon. Member except those who take the Conservative Whip were to vote in a Division, our arguments and votes would be submerged by the tramping of conforming southern English feet through the Government Lobby. That situation was not brought about by the electors of Northern Ireland and it is the negation of representative government. I do not blame the Government for that because they did not plan for it to happen. No one planned it, and no one welcomed it. It is not an example of colonialism in the corridors of Whitehall. I almost wish that it were, because it might make the Government cherish their powers and reflect on how to use them. It is quite the reverse.
The Government, and particularly, I suspect, Government business managers, clearly regard direct rule as an unwanted burden. It has all come about because of the tragic dialectic of Irish history which has almost the unfolding inevitability of a Shakespearean tragedy. Direct rule is there, and two consequences follow for those who have eyes to see.

Ms. Clare Short: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that Ireland's major tragedy is that it was partitioned? Is he saying that that was inevitable also, or does he agree that that is the root of the present tragedy?

Mr. Archer: I agree with my hon. Friend that that is the root of the present tragedy. We could perhaps engage in a philosophical argument about how many events in history were inevitable. I suspect that, given the people's


environment, background, education and folklore, there was a certain inevitability about what followed from that. However, perhaps this is a profitless discussion that my hon. Friend and I can take further privately.
Two consequences follow from direct rule. The first is that, while it continues, the Government should be alert to the need for sensitivity. If the people of Northern Ireland are to feel that their grievances are even discussed, let alone redressed, through constitutional democratic politics, it is important that someone should be in a position to make their case adequately and without pressure of time, and that those in a position to take decisions should listen to the argument and not simply respond wearily and predictably at the end of the debate in defence of policies that have already been agreed without consultation.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) that it all depends on the way in which direct rule is treated in this House. That means having a Government who respect the rights of those in opposition, and who treat Northern Ireland debates with a new measure of respect. There is no better example than the way in which the Government have dealt with today's business. Today the Government have invited the House to consider four items of Northern Ireland business. If that business related to Great Britain, or specifically to Scotland or Wales, each would have merited a full day's debate. That is in no way to complain about the respect that is accorded to other regions. Such would have been their due in any democratic process. But because the business relates to Northern Ireland, the Government devote one day's business to all four items.

Mr. Molyneaux: Just in case the right hon. and learned Gentleman should alarm the Patronage Secretary, I should point out, with great respect, that it does not mean quite what he suggested. Arrangements could be made to ensure that the total burden on the Government's time on the Floor of the House could be curtailed but there could still be effective scrutiny, and effective criticism could still be brought to bear on any legislation. However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that that point can be considered on another occasion.

Mr. Archer: I have not yet ventured to suggest what it would mean in this case. The right hon. Gentleman and I have participated in a number of discussions about this. Again, it is a matter on which there is a wide measure of agreement between us.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is it not a fact that it is not the length of the debate that is important, but the right of hon. Members from Northern Ireland constituencies to move amendments and to have the opportunity to vote on those amendments? Even if there had been three days of debate on these orders, they would be meaningless because we cannot do what any other hon. Member from any other part of the United Kingdom can do, which is to move amendments on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Archer: I was coming to that point. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that, even if there were the right to move amendments, if there were no time in which to discuss them, the entire procedure would be frustrated. Clearly we need to seek both.
This debate is about the way in which Northern Ireland is governed. I am told that it is hoped to dispose of it in

something like three hours; if not, as I understand it, it will proceed until a late hour tonight. We shall then consider the Appropriation order, what in relation to Great Britain we would call a Supplementary Estimates debate, embodying the entire constitutional principle of the redress of grievances before Supply. But this is a Northern Ireland order and it will be accorded three hours debate, if the time is available. Then, hopefully, at 10 o'clock, or such later hour as it is reached, we shall embark on a debate about the future of the electricity industry tin Northern Ireland. It is difficult to imagine a more controversial subject. The Government will seek to justify their entire case for privatisation——

Mr. Tom King: indicated dissent.

Mr. Archer: I am interested that the right hon. Gentleman suggests that they will not. Perhaps they will take the House for granted and they will not even try to make out their case. Perhaps it is a measure of how much there is to be said in favour of the idea that the Government do not envisage taking long over it. But consumers in Northern Ireland will certainly want to know the answers to some important questions. The whole trade union movement is waiting to hear whether the Government are committed to a more secure future for the electricity industry than they were for the gas industry.
As the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (M r. Molyneaux) said, this business could have been dealt with by way of a Bill, with a Second Reading debate, a Committee stage, a Report stage and a Third Reading debate. I am not suggesting that all of that was necessary. If it had related to Great Britain, there would certainly have been a full day's debate on Second Reading, but because it is about Northern Ireland it is introduced by way of an unamendable order and a debate that is limited to an hour and a half. The House will then proceed, in a further hour and a half, to discuss the future of jury trial in Northern Ireland.
I do not blame Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office because I do not believe that their opinion of the Government's business managers differs greatly from mine. The difference is that they cannot say so and I do not ask them to comment on it. But if the Government allow their business managers' tail to wag the Northern Ireland Office dog, that reflects the view that the Prime Minister and the Cabinet take of Northern Ireland business and of the people to whom it relates.
If we are to have direct rule for the foreseeable future, the least that we can do is to make it work as any democratic system of government should work, with proper consultation, adequate time for debate, and an effective debate, in the sense that the Government can be seen to listen to what is said. I was pleased when the Secretary of State said that the Government were prepared to embark on discussions. We have been asking them to do so for a long time. Any repentant sinner who returns to the fold will be welcomed. Now, as I understand it, there is no hon. Member of any party who would not be prepared to take part in such discussions. So may we try again? That is one of the consequences——

Sir Eldon Griffiths: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that one of the mischiefs of our present procedure is the damage that it does to parliamentary debate in the sense that an unamendable order, in theory, proceeding from the master


legislation passed by the House, may in some cases in Northern Ireland be different in spirit and in detail from the general legislation? However, because there is no means of seeking to amend such orders, there can be passed, as there was in the previous Session, orders that conflict with the spirit of the master legislation from which those orders proceed. That is a mischief to this House as well as to Northern Ireland.

Mr. Archer: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that there are two possibilities. There may be legislation in relation to Great Britain that has already passed through the House. Certainly none of us would subscribe either to the principle that it should be applicable automatically to Northern Ireland without debate, or that there should necessarily be differences between the two sides of the water, without debate. But tonight that position is reversed. Northern Ireland will be the pilot scheme and, in due course, the House will be faced with the situation in which somebody will say, "This is what was done in Northern Ireland and the House has already debated it." The House will have debated it in an hour and a half. I shall not labour the point because I am sure that the Secretary of State understands that there is a wide measure of agreement about it. This might be the moment and perhaps this is an idea whose time has come, even if it is only a modest idea.
That is one of the consequences that follows from a recognition of the present position. The second is that we should look for ways of seeking agreement on how to break away from direct rule and return the power to make decisions to Northern Ireland on a basis in which people of both traditions can have confidence. I am not speaking of finding an ultimate solution because the solution may itself be a process. But we must begin by finding ways in which the community can manage its affairs in peace, with neighbour living alongside neighbour—not because they will always think the same, but in spite of their differences.
That will entail two processes. First, if political discussion is to have any future in Northern Ireland, it has to begin with the pragmatic business of daily life between people who may disagree about matters of grand principle and the constitution. It is on the practical decisions divorced from sectarian issues that the Government might demonstrate their readiness to consult.
Let me give a modest example—the Belfast urban area plan. We have all seen the commendable recovery of Belfast city centre since the 1970s. I know that the Government have taken great pleasure in it, and it is a pleasure that we share. However, one does not have to travel too far from the city centre to find communities which feel that all the prosperity has passed them by. The conditions in which they live serve only to point the contrast. The Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland has published imaginative proposals for a Belfast area plan for the development of the whole area up to the year 2001. This is not the occasion to discuss their merits or failures, so I shall not. But there is clearly a great deal to discuss.
We might have expected the Department to encourage the fullest consultation among the people of Belfast and the various community groups. We might have expected it to make available all the information at its disposal so that discussion could be as fully informed as possible.

Instead there is to be no equivalent of what, in relation to structure plans in England and Wales, is called the report of survey. Whether that is because the Government did not discover the information before they made their plans or whether they regard the information as a closely guarded secret, I do not know. I understand that the people of Belfast are not to be given that information.
The time limit for lodging objections to the plan was six weeks. How it was to be hoped that people would read the proposals, convene meetings of organisations, conduct discussions and submit objections in that time is not clear, particularly as the Government announced the general election in the middle of the consultation period. I am seeking not to embark on a discussion of the plan but to point out that one essential factor of public confidence in either direct rule or in any attempt to move away from it is for the Government to demonstrate their willingness to consult the public individually or through political parties or community organisations into which people would channel their views.
If a way forward is to be found, a second necessity is an element of humility all round. That quality is not greatly in evidence among Ministers, nor among political leaders generally. When the meek inherit the earth, there may be a few changes around here. However, the unionists' task force, to which the Secretary of State referred, has just produced a report called "An End to Drift". It is about discussion between representatives of the unionist people and the Government with a view to subsequent, more formal negotiations. As the Secretary of State reminded us, they would be without prejudice, in the sense that no one by embarking on them would be held to have resiled from any view that he had previously expressed or to have committed himself to anything except a desire to find a way forward from the stalemate. The report proposes that no matter should be excluded from the negotiations, so an attempt by any side to dictate the conclusions before the talks begin would not be part of the arrangements.
If I understand those proposals, they would represent a significant change in the position of the Unionist leaders because they would no longer require the pre-condition that the process of the Anglo-Irish Agreement should be suspended. Presumably that is one of the objectives that they would hope to achieve, but they would not defer beginning the talks until it had already been achieved. If the Government are proposing an agenda based on that and the unionist leaders endorse the proposals, that would not he taken as a sign of weakness but hailed as a constructive gesture.
As a necessary first step, the report proposes a unionist convention which would presumably work out an agenda that commended itself to all those on the unionist side, as in 1985 the report of the new Ireland forum proposed an agenda agreed by all groups on constitutional measures. Then the bargaining on the two sides would begin. No one pretends that this will be an easy or speedy process, but it may lead to agreement on the first steps back from the present blind alley. If that can be achieved, there will be time enough for further agreement, step by step, along a more hopeful road.
I hope that the leaders of the Unionist parties will feel able to encourage the proposals, and I hope that the Government will display some flexibility. I know that the Secretary of State said that on certain matters Government flexibility might not be acceptable. It is a


difficult balance to maintain, but I hope that the Government will display some flexibility because that too would be indicative not of weakness but of strength. The Opposition will do their best to reap the blessings that fall to the peacemakers.
This all sounds modest, but in this situation modest progress would be a worthwhile achievement. We may find that we enjoy talking together and it may become habit-forming. It may be the beginning of a process that will lead to the day when the Government can come to the House to ask not for the renewal of direct rule but for the endorsement of a new and more hopeful phase in the affairs of Northern Ireland.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I pay tribute to one of our colleagues who has not returned to the House. His name has already been mentioned by the Secretary of State and the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). Whether one agreed with Enoch Powell or not, without doubt he was a great parliamentarian. I am glad that he was able to scare the Secretary of State with his eagle eye. Unfortunately, I look only at the back of the Secretary of State's head rather than at his face. The departure of any great parliamentarian, whether or not one agrees with his principles, is a loss to the House and our debates. As the House is aware, I had many differences with the previous right hon. Member for South Down. Nevertheless, on one matter we were agreed—that Northern Ireland is an integral part of this United Kingdom.
Although he may not be a Member of the House of Commons, I trust that Mr. Powell will soon be a Member of this Parliament in another place. That should be his role in the future. I do not suppose that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) will have any objection to that, as he will not he nominating people for that list.
It will not surprise any hon. Member to hear me say that I oppose direct rule. Even without the issues of the reign of terrorism in Northern Ireland and of the controversy surrounding the Anglo-Irish Agreement, I would still oppose direct rule. This has been discussed a little across the Floor of the House today, so I do not want to proceed with a long discussion on that matter.
Let me give an illustration. I understand that next Tuesday evening the House will be asked, at or after 10 o'clock, in an hour and a half to sweep away laws that have applied in Northern Ireland for many years governing the closure of public houses on the Lord's day, the Christian Sabbath. Such a debate about any part of the United Kingdom requires much longer.
The Home Secretary has told us that there will be a radical change in licensing laws in other parts of the United Kingdom. Such a change will be given proper debate in this House and there will be opportunities for hon. Members to move amendments and put their point of view. However, by a stroke of a pen, something that is extremely near and dear to a vast number of people in Northern Ireland is to be swept away—let me say swept away in an undemocratic manner—in this House next Tuesday night.
I do not wish to dwell on that matter today, but let me say this: when Scotland and Wales had a similar problem, there were all sorts of discussions about local options and about giving people the right to exercise a vote on the issue. However, Northern Ireland representatives will not

even have the opportunity in this House to move any such amendments. Instead, the law will be radically changed. It is not only Protestants who object to the Sunday opening of pubs. I represent people in Antrim, North, Roman Catholics, who have come to me and said, "We don-t want the pub open in our village on Sundays." I have also been visited by people who work in the liquor industry who say that they do not wish to work on Sunday. It is that sort of thing which causes a souring and poisoning against the way in which these matters are taken in this House.
I have no desire to give any credibility to the type of debate in which I am asked to speak when it is totally impossible for any representative of Northern Ireland to do his duty on this issue as he could do if he was an hon. Member from any other part of this United Kingdom. I trust that the Secretary of State will realise just how we feel about this particular matter.
I listened with great care to the Secretary of State. I do not agree with two of his points. I was extremely critical of his comments on the terrorist campaign. I do not believe that they will stand up to examination. Also, I am not so sure about the economy. With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's comments on "political circumstances", I promise him that I shall read that part of his speech with great care. I believe that, today, the Secretary of State at least approached this matter with the sensitivity with which it should be approached and I am prepared to read that part of his speech. I could accept his tone, but I must find out what he really said and then I will comment on that. I am sure that all my hon. Friends would agree with me.
I must put the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) right, because his explanation of the task force report is totally erroneous. I must put that report into clear perspective today. The report did not say that we should enter into negotiations without prior conditions. We said that we should have terms. I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will seek to jump up, but I have also read the report and passed it almost believing that I needed to study it in such a way that I would believe in its verbal inspiration. I appreciate what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about a convention—it was to this convention that the words "without prejudice" were applied. The report stated:
In addition we suggest that the Unionist Convention be invited to endorse the demand for an alternative to and replacement of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and the commencement of 'without prejudice' discussions with Her Majesty's Government thereto.
That needs to be made clear.
I know that the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West was seeking to be helpful, but may I say to him that the talks that we have in mind are talks without prejudice and without preconditions on one single issue—is it possible to find agreement with the Government so that there can be negotiations about
an alternative to and replacement of the Anglo-Irish Agreement".
If the agreement has not worked out—to put it in a slightly different way, if it does not deliver to either side of the community what it is supposed to deliver—surely we should be seeking to quote from the scripture in "a more excellent way". We should also seek to establish if there is the will. Let me say that in our joint Unionist manifesto—let no one in this House think that there has


been a sudden change of mind because that manifesto was written and published long before the task force report—we said:
We are offering the consent of the Unionist community in exchange for a fair, equitable and reasonable alternative to a Pact that has left a trail of death and destruction and a legacy of division and instability.
That is the offer that the unionists made in their manifesto. Let me underline that offer for the instruction of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West so that he will know exactly what we are after. The manifesto also stated:
We will urgently seek to ascertain whether the new government is prepared to create the circumstances and conditions necessary to encourage successful negotiations, including the suspension of the working of the Agreement and of the Maryfield Secretariat.
Thus, talks "without prejudice" are simply to see whether we can possibly have such negotiations. I hope that I have spelt that out with absolute clarity because I do not want anyone to say, as the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West has said—I know that he said it without malice—that there has been a sudden, complete and total reversal of what we maintained in the past. We have always said that we did not want confrontation. We want consultation and we now hope that we can have such probing talks to achieve that end.
The manifesto also said:
The path ahead will not be easy".
No one need think that because we come round a table and talk we will suddenly see our way out of this difficulty. It will be an extremely difficult task. Whether we like it or not, a polarisation has taken place in our country such as we have never seen before. That polarisation has now overspilt on to the workshop floor where it has never occurred before——

Mr. Seamus Mallon: Come on! Where has the hon. Gentleman been living?

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am quoting the trade unions and I am quoting what the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West has said over and over again when he has congratulated the work people of Northern Ireland when they have not allowed such things to overspill on to the workshop floor. If the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) has not heard those debates he should get down to Hansard and read exactly what was said. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the entire controversy has always existed on the work shop floor, that there has been polarisation among the unions and that there has always been fighting on the workshop floor, I utterly refute that with the authority of the trade union movement. That movement has never said such a thing.
One cannot change the attitude of people by a secret meeting between paid officials of a union who are not present on the factory floor and who have never even consulted their own shop stewards. Let me get this into the open so that we will know what we are talking about. Gallaghers factory is in my constituency. It is a good factory and provides employment for Roman Catholics and Protestants, nationalists, republicans and loyalists. Unknown to the shop stewards of the factory, whom I have met, together with the managements, certain officials of the union signed an agreement saying that in the future no flags or bunting would he put up inside the factory. The

first time that the shop stewards heard about that was when they were given a document by the management, not by the unions.
Ever since the factory was built, on the anniversary of the Somme, Union flags were put up on certain machines on the factory floor. No political emblems were put up. As a result of the document the management moved in and said, "You can't have that." The management said—the Secretary of State should read the document—that it was illegal under new legislation to put up the Union flag. I do not accept that. I would like to see where that is written. At the end of the day the management, myself and the trade unions, not ordinary workers, had a meeting and came to a reasonable agreement about this matter. However, forces outside the factory, including the spokesman for the Social Democratic and Labour party, Mr. Sean Farran, said that the management had bowed to what I had said. The management did what was right in the circumstances with the shop stewards and the people who know what is happening in that factory.
If the House thinks that it will change traditions that have existed for years, it must realise that it cannot do it and will not do it. The flag will fly. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) knows that. We all know that. We are not foolish. We know what is in people's hearts and minds. I know of other factories that are republican and they have their flag flying and pictures of the hunger strikers around the wall.

Mr. Mallon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way in this debate on the renewal of direct rule and on the enormous problems that face the north of Ireland. Is there some significance in the fact that almost the entire speech of the hon. Gentleman has concentrated on the drinking of pints on Sunday and the flying of flags in certain factories in the north of Ireland? Is it not indicative of the attitude towards those problems that he concentrates on what are peripheral symbols and items that are peripheral to the real problems that face the people in the north of Ireland? Will the hon. Gentleman address the real problems for a change?

Rev. Ian Paisley: We have heard a timely comment that the national flag is only a peripheral matter to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh. He wants it to be on the periphery and then he wants to put it out altogether. The hon. Gentleman had better learn that spiritual values in regard to the keeping of Sunday go right to the quick of the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland, and when he is touching that subject he is touching something with which his republicanism will never interfere. I shall make my speech in my own way. All the organisations in Northern Ireland which do not have the religious views that I have say that there are far too many outlets for alcohol. I am sure that the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) may have a different view from that of his hon. Friends the Members for Foyle and Newry and Armagh. I do not want to keep the hon. Member for South Down from making his maiden speech. All I can say is that the House needs to recognise some realities. The things I am talking about are realities. They go right to the heart of the matter. I trust that on this day in the House we will get down to the real basics concerning Northern Ireland.
I was in the House when Stormont was abolished. There was a sense of euphoria. Everybody said, "It's all over." In fact, even the Prime Minister told us that there


would be peace at last. I said, "You do not know what you are talking about. You will have only bloodshed and violence."
People talk about 50 years of misrule. I was never a member of the Government in Northern Ireland so they cannot blame me for any misrule. I was never there and nor was the leader of the Ulster Unionist party. The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) was there for a while. If we look at the record of those 50 years and then look at the record since we have had direct rule, we can see the tombstones we are erecting every second day in Northern Ireland. The House needs to ask itself whether it made the right decision on that day. All I can say is that we do not rule our Province. If there are no civil rights in Northern Ireland, there is a conference—[Interruption.] If there are things in Northern Ireland that the Ulster Members on the Opposition Benches do not like, the Secretary of State is the man to blame. One should not blame the unionists, because they have no power. What is more, I was amazed when the Secretary of State made a confession. He said that the people of Northern Ireland have less say. Then we had the Anglo-Irish Agreement which, in my opinion, gives us even less of a say.
In the mood it is in it would be wise for the House to try to see whether we can find a way to resolve the difficulties. I will pledge myself and any ability that I have to see that my part is done. I will do my part because I have a stake in Northern Ireland. I want to see my family grow up there. I want to see my grandchildren grow up there and I want it to be a place where there can be real peace, real stability and real reconciliation, not meaningless names and more death among our people. It will not be an easy road. I think that the Ulster Members on the Opposition Benches know that. It will take a lot of dedication and all the strength that we can bring to the task. It is a task worth taking on and if we make progress those coming after us will at least he able to thank us for doing our bit on an evil day.

Mr. John David Taylor: There is a feeling of deja vu in this debate because, as the Secretary of State so accurately pointed out, this is the 13th occasion on which a British Government have had to renew by order the system of government in Northern Ireland. That system was originally introduced by the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) who said that it was a temporary measure, one year or so, and then a system of government would be restored in Northern Ireland. Now, some 15 years later, we are still talking about the possibility of devolved government in Northern Ireland.
It was, of course, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) who abandoned devolved government in Northern Ireland. During the debate in 1985, when we discussed the Anglo-Irish Agreement—which was not passed as a matter of law by this House, but simply as a motion of approval—he said that one of the great weaknesses of English politicians is that they do not understand Ulster politics. Those were the first wise words that he ever said about Northern Ireland. Certainly, his career over the years proved that he knew very little about Northern Ireland. In fact, it has been shown recently that his love for Northern Ireland is bettered only by his love for the Prime Minister. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup is not in the House this

afternoon because he and those who have followed him to destroy devolution are now trying to restore devolved government in Northern Ireland. There seems to have been irony in the attitude of English politicians towards Northern Ireland during those sad years since 1972. They, and no one else, must accept responsibility for that period. They must accept the responsibility for the tragedy that has developed in the Roman Catholic and Protestant communities in Northern Ireland.
We recently had an election. That election produced a stalemate in Northern Ireland. The SDLP did not benefit from the Anglo-Irish Agreement, as English politicians promised it would. In fact, Sinn Fein defeated the SDLP in the one real contest between them in Belfast, West. Of course, there has been a change in South Down, the constituency to the south of mine. However, as we well know, that was caused by tactical voting. "Get the Brit out" was the message, and the voters were successful.
I am sorry that my former colleague, Mr. J. Enoch Powell, the former right hon. Member for South Down, is no longer a Member of the House. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have paid tribute to him and, as an Ulster Unionist, I want to add my support to those who have praised him. As a party, the Ulster Unionists will miss Mr. Powell. Ulster will miss him and this Parliament will miss his many contributions on a wide variety of subjects. I hope that, for many years ahead, he will still be able to pronounce in public on behalf of the whole of the United Kingdom.
The Anglo-Irish Agreement does not seem to have had any effect in the United Kingdom general election in Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland, more than 400,000 unionists once again proved that they were rock solid against Dublin rule in that part of the United Kingdom. They expressed yet again their solid opposition to the existence of Eire civil servants in Maryfield, near Belfast. The only place where the agreement played a part was in Scotland. The Anglo-Irish Agreement assisted in the defeat of nine Tory candidates and almost defeated two Tory Cabinet Ministers—the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) and the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind).

Mr. Mallon: They believe it.

Mr. Taylor: Indeed, they believe it. They say so, and the papers say so.
The Anglo-Irish Agreement has failed. We were told by the Prime Minister and the agreement's supporters that it would bring stability. In fact, it has increased instability in all aspects of life in Northern Ireland. We were told that it would bring about reconciliation in Northern Ireland. Instead, it has created bitterness that we have never experienced before in the Province. Even Cardinal O'Fiaich, at the end of last year speaking in Dublin, said that he had never known feelings in Northern Ireland to be worse.
We all know the sad statistics about security. When the former Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland replied to the debate on the Anglo-Irish Agreement, he said that we have seen a great period of decline in terrorism in Northern Ireland. He was right. In 1983, 1984 and 1985 we saw a continual fall in terrorist activity in Northern Ireland. However, since the agreement was signed in November 1985, there has been a steady increase in terrorism in all parts of Northern Ireland. Once again, that is attributable to the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
Of course, we were assured of other things by those who still try to support the Anglo-Irish Agreement. We were assured that the Dublin Government would bring about extradition. What has happened to that extradition, 20 months after the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement? Even Dr. FitzGerald postponed extradition until December of this year. Our suspicions are beginning to be aroused that the new Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland will postpone the introduction of extradition indefinitely.
We were told that the Anglo-Irish Agreement would bring about support for the Royal Ulster Constabulary from the SDLP. Once again, we know that when the former Foreign Minister in the Republic of Ireland, Mr. Barry, encouraged members of the Catholic minority to join the RUC, he was criticised by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), speaking on behalf of his leader and the entire SDLP.

Mr. Hume: That is right.

Mr. Taylor: Indeed, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) has confirmed that.
That is the present position, and that is why we laughed when the Secretary of State said that we must start from the present position. So we must. The present position is that the Anglo-Irish Agreement has been disastrous for everyone in Northern Ireland.
I believe and hope that somewhere there must be a way ahead for the Province, and many people in Northern Ireland would agree with that. We have been through a nightmare, and we hope to replace that nightmare with dreams. We have had hatred, and we must replace that with love. Above all, we have had much despair, and we must raise the hopes of our people, but not falsely. There is a great danger that we might do that now in Northern Ireland. We might build up hopes which then melt away.
"Let us have talks" is the cry today in Northen Ireland from some who perhaps have not analysed the situation sufficiently closely. Talks with whom and talks about what? First, I want to consider with whom the talks should be. I notice that invitations have been sent to Her Majesty's Government for inter-party talks in Scotland. The Scottish Tory party immediately rejected the idea of any round-table talks with the Scottish nationalists and the Scottish Labour party. However, they take the reverse position in Northern Ireland. The inconsistencies of Government policy in Scotland and Northern Ireland are obvious. If we cannot have political talks among parties in Scotland, how would they be successful in Northern Ireland, where leaders of all political parties have regrettably had to pin themselves on so many political hooks in the past few years and from which it is difficult for them to climb down.
If there are to be talks, I am opposed to inter-party talks in Northern Ireland. Talks there will be, but, when that time comes, those talks must be with Her Majesty's Government. What will the talks be about? Many thoughts have been thrown around, some rashly, in recent weeks. One suggestion has been independence. The idea of independence in Northern Ireland is an idle threat. It has no basis whatsoever.
I represent a constituency in which many thousands of people work in Harland and Wolff and Short Brothers. The jobs of those people would be at risk if there were

independence. What about the old-age pensioners and the widows in my constituency? How would they survive if there were independence? If the British Army cannot defeat terrorism, how could we, without the support of the British Army, defeat terrorism in Northern Ireland? I believe that independence should not be suggested by anyone who honours the word unionist today.
It has been suggested also that there should be integration and that Northern Ireland should be incorporated into the United Kingdom in exactly the same way as Wales, Scotland and England and that the British Conservative and Socialist parties should become the main political parties in Northern Ireland. In reality, the minority Irish community in Northern Ireland would not support either pro-British party. The majority British community in Northern Ireland does not trust either of the political parties in Great Britain. It is not, therefore, practical politics to envisage integration taking off in Northern Ireland.
Devolution is another suggestion. For 13 years the Government have tried to rebuild, and failed, what they destroyed 15 years ago. Again, the Government's inconsistencies are evident. They say to Scotland, "No devolved government for Scotland." They say to Wales, "No devolution for Wales." But to Northern Ireland they say, "Let us try to rebuild institutions of devolved government in Northern Ireland." What conditions would the Government want to apply to devolved government in Northern Ireland, assuming the Anglo-Irish Agreement were out of the way? Eventually, the Anglo-Irish Agreement will have to go.
The Government talk about power sharing, imposed or otherwise. All the parties would either be in the Government or support the Government. There would be no Opposition. It would be like Tehran with the Ayatollah or like Moscow with the Kremlin—no Opposition; everyone in the Government. How could such a devolved system of government operate in a Western democracy in part of the United Kingdom?
Of course, there would be power sharing also in the Cabinet or the Executive. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) could well be Prime Minister and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh Minister for Home Affairs in charge of security. Only a few moments ago they were arguing about a flag. Can we expect such a Cabinet or Government to survive in Northern Ireland? That would not be realistic. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup is correct in saying that if English politicians understood Northern Ireland, they would not contemplate one further year of that system. For 13 years the Government have failed with such a ridiculous formula, and they will continue to do so.
Is there a way ahead after the ideas of independence, integration and a power-sharing devolved Government are knocked down? Time is on our side within the unionist majority. We will destroy the Anglo-Irish Agreement. In fact, five of the Cabinet Ministers who introduced it have already disappeared from the Cabinet. We should now proceed with a stage-by-stage retreat from the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I do not believe that the agreement, failure as it is, will disappear overnight—it would be too much to expect the Government to be so realistic. We have to undermine the agreement stage by stage.
First, we have to give the people of Northern Ireland the same rights in their national Parliament as are enjoyed by the people of England, Scotland and Wales. That


means that we must abandon the idea of legislation by Orders in Council with no right of amendment by Northern Ireland Members of legislation affecting their part of the United Kingdom. It is an outrage that this is the only part of the European Economic Community where an elected Member of Parliament cannot table amendments to laws affecting his part of the country. There will soon be legislation on licensing laws in England and Wales and, as a Northern Ireland Member, I shall be able to table an amendment to it. But next week there will be licensing legislation for Northern Ireland and, as a Northern Ireland Member, I shall not be allowed to table amendments to it. Northern Ireland Members could participate in the defeat of Sunday trading in Great Britain, but they are not allowed to amend the law that introduces Sunday drinking in Northern Ireland which was imposed on us by people who are not answerable to the Northern Ireland electorate. That must be changed.
As a first step, we must be given the same rights in our national Parliament as are enjoyed by our fellow British citizens in England, Scotland and Wales—proper parliamentary procedures for Northern Ireland legislation with the right to table amendments. Secondly, the democratic and constitutional parties representing the nationalist and unionist points of view must become more involved in the administration of the state of Northern Ireland, not in the legislation for the state. That can be done through a committee system, whether at Stormont or elsewhere. There is a parallel in the European Parliament. Each main subject is controlled by a committee of Members of Parliament who are drawn from all the political parties in the European Parliament. The chairmanship of all those committees is shared by Members from all political parties. That would be a first step towards reintroducing devolution in Northern Ireland. Health, education and environment committees would be made up of members of all the elected constitutional parties in Northern Ireland and each committee would be chaired by the representatives of those parties. That would overcome the problem whereby health, education and other important local government matters are controlled by the nominees of an English politician who are not answerable at local level to the Northern Ireland people.
The third stage must be recognition of the fact that there is an Irish dimension. Northern Ireland has been in the United Kingdom for 187 years and is likely to remain so for many more, but it is located in the island of Ireland, albeit partitioned because the south of Ireland broke away in 1921. The people of the island share many things, beyond the weather. In 1962, when I was chairman of the Ulster Young Unionist Council, I led a delegation of Young Unionists to a meeting with the Fine Gael party in Dublin. Some said that it was crazy and that we would be expelled from the party when we returned to Belfast. In fact, when we returned, the Ulster Unionist party approved our visit. It was the members of the Fine Gael party who were expelled from the Fine Gael party in Dublin for meeting us, following the formula that we had agreed, which was simply to respect each other's position.
During the 22 years since then I have always felt that we must do more to improve co-operation between Northern Ireland and the Republic. There are factors which, more so now than even then, are important and common to us. We are now both within the EEC—the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland as part of the

United Kingdom—so there can be co-operation on matters involving EEC policies. There can be co-operation to increase trade between Northern Ireland and the Republic and to deal with tourism and the transport network. All those factors would benefit from joint discussions between Northern Ireland and the Republic. That is the practical Irish dimension.
A new institution could be created within the island of Ireland. Representatives from the Dublin Parliament and from the new administrative body in Stormont, or greater council for Ulster, would meet regularly to consider matters relevant to both parts of the island and to report to their respective institutions in Dublin and Belfast. That would bring about greater understanding in Ireland, and it would be far more important that politicians in southern and Northern Ireland got to know each other better than that each Parliament in Dublin and London proceeded to create a parliamentary tier to the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council. Such a tier, comprising, as it would, only English and southern Irish politicians, and certainly not politicians representing the majority community in Northern Ireland, would do nothing to improve relations within the island of Ireland—which, after all, must be the objective of any new system of government and institutions that we create.
We must try to take the problem of Northern Ireland in stages. We must not build up false hopes. Above all, we must never again announce any grand new initiative by the Government.

Mr. Ian Gow: The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) will not misunderstand me if, when I congratulate him on his election to the House, I say that I wish he were not here. All who have spoken in the debate have paid tribute to his predecessor, and the hon. Gentleman, in the speech that he will shortly be making, will no doubt pay a tribute to that predecessor for his work as a constituency Member of Parliament, about which he is peculiarly well informed.
We in the House will certainly miss the former right hon. Member for South Down, who made a remarkable contribution to our affairs—not only in debates on Northern Ireland since October 1974, but on many other matters. If the hon. Gentleman is able to approximate to the parliamentary and forensic skills of his predecessor, he will indeed be a distinguished Member of the House.
Today's debate takes place against a sombre background of high hopes that were shared by every hon. Member, including those who believed as I did that the Anglo-Irish Agreement would prolong and not diminish Ulster's agony. Now we meet 20 months on, and those who hoped, even if they did not believe it, that peace, stability and reconciliation could come to Northern Ireland as a result of the agreement—even those who had higher hopes than I did—have had their hopes diminished.
I still feel that hon. Members, and those outside the House, do not understand how dramatic was the change in the Government's policy. That change can be illustrated most vividly by two remarks made in the House by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, one during her first premiership and the other during her second. On 29 July 1982 my right hon. Friend said:
no commitment exists for Her Majesty's Government to consult the Irish Government on matters affecting Northern


Ireland. That has always been our position. We reiterate and emphasise it, so that everyone is clear about it."—[Official Report, 29 July 1982; Vol. 28, c. 1226.]
Barely two years later, during her second premiership, my right hon. Friend said:
The constitutional future of Northern Ireland is a matter for Northern Ireland and this Parliament, and for no one else."—[Official Report, 17 May 1984; Vol. 60, c. 503.]
My right hon. Friend used those words deliberately. She used them because she knew that that assurance was required from the head of the Government to those in Northern Ireland who believed that there was no part for the Republic of Ireland in the constitutional future of the Province. Imagine the contrast when we read the words of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which states:
The United Kingdom Government accept that the Irish Government will put forward views and proposals on matters relating to Northern Ireland. Determined efforts shall be made to resolve any differences.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State continues to assert that the Anglo-Irish Agreement has brought about no change in the status of Northern Ireland. In the Province, that view is not shared by a single member of the unionist community. I believe that the status of Northern Ireland has been changed because we have given a foreign power—the only power whose constitution lays claim to the territory of Northern Ireland—the right to put forward views and proposals about the government of the Province, and have laid upon my right hon. Friend an obligation, in the event of a difference of view between himself and the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic, to make determined efforts to resolve differences.
In a curious way, the arrival of the hon. Member for South Down has undermined part of the philosophy that lay behind the Anglo-Irish Agreement. In effect, the agreement gave the Irish Republic responsibility for protecting the interests of nationalists in Northern Ireland. That responsibility, placed by Her Majesty's Government upon the Government of a foreign power, has been undermined because of the hon. Gentleman's arrival. Three SDLP Members are now seated on the Opposition Benches, and another hon. Member, who, although he does not attend the House, could also be described properly as a nationalist, has been elected to this place. We have four nationalist Members, and we are now achieving an approximation between the representation of nationalist Members in the House and the nationalist population in the Province.
My right hon. Friends who sit on the Treasury Bench will be obliged to profess their continuing faith that the Anglo-Irish Agreement will bring peace, stability and reconciliation. Nevertheless, we know that in the past 20 months there has been added violence, added sectarian suspicion and added turmoil in Northern Ireland, and we know—alas—that during that time there has not been the improvement in the economy of Northern Ireland for which we had all hoped. A change of policy will be necessary in the future.
I am not saying to my right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench that the Anglo-Irish Agreement should he torn up; we know that that is impossible. However, we can move away from the most objectionable features of that agreement. Let me put some proposals to my right hon. Friend.
The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) and the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) both referred—rightly, in my view—to the illogicality and unjustifiability of the way in which we legislate for Northern Ireland. Legislation for Northern Ireland should no longer be virtually exclusively by Order in Council. Orders in Council of course apply to England, Scotland and Wales. Nevertheless, it is absurd—as the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) pointed out—that a Member of Parliament for a Northern Ireland constituency should be able to move amendments to proposed legislation for England but should be unable to do so in respect of proposed legislation for Northern Ireland. That injustice can be remedied and I hope that it will be.
Secondly, there is no reason whatever why the secretariat that serves the Intergovernmental Conference should be sited in Northern Ireland. There is no reason whatever why that secretariat should not be moved to London and I hope that it will be. There are several reasons for this, including security.
Thirdly, although when my right hon. Friend was kind enough to give way to me during his speech he referred to the fact that he was not responsible for the abandonment of the policy upon which he and I fought and won the 1979 general election, it is nevertheless open to those who serve in the Northern Ireland Office—and certainly open to my right hon. Friend—to revive a policy that had been worked out by his friend and mine, Airey Neave, as a result of four years of the closest study during which Airey Neave was shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. It is a mistake to believe that we are always wiser in 1987 than we were in 1979.

Mr. Molyneaux: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He refreshes our memory by stating that those proposals were included in the 1979 Conservative party manifesto. I am sure he would also agree that the Conservative party won a considerable victory in that election. Therefore, that policy was endorsed by the majority of the British people.

Mr. Gow: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, whom I almost called my right hon. Friend, but I have never gone along with the doctrine of the manifesto authority——

Mr. Molyneaux: The poll tax?

Mr. Gow: The right hon. Gentleman reminds me of the poll tax—[HON. MEMBERS: "The community charge."] Quite right. I do not myself believe that all those who voted for the official Opposition are in favour of Britain giving up her nuclear weapons on her own. Therefore, I do not subscribe to the doctrine of the manifesto giving a particular authority. However, I do not wish to be diverted as other hon. Members wish to contribute.
I was making suggestions to my right hon. Friend and was proposing a change in the way in which we legislate for the Province. I was proposing a movement of the secretariat from the Province to London. My third proposal is that we should examine again the proposal in the 1979 manifesto to set up a regional council—I prefer a single regional council or a provincial council—that in Northern Ireland would be clothed with powers similar to those enjoyed by a county council in England or a regional council in Scotland.
Next, we should give modest additional powers to the 26 district councils in Northern Ireland. It is literally absurd that matters as essentially local as car parking cannot be dealt with other than by Her Majesty's Ministers, however distinguished they are. We should give further modest additional powers to the district councils in Northern Ireland to bring them more closely into line with the powers of district councils in England.
Within the changed system of government that I have described to bring the Province more closely into line with the way in which we govern England, Scotland and Wales, I am most emphatically not asserting that Northern Ireland is the same as England, Wales or Scotland, any more than those who happen to have been born as Yorkshiremen would assert that there is no difference between Yorkshire and Lancashire. I am a Scotsman by descent and very proud of it too. But the great difficulty into which the Government have got themselves is that we are seeking to govern one part of the United Kingdom differently from the rest of it, differently from the way in which it had been governed previously and without the consent of a majority of the people who are being governed differently. It is not possible to go on doing so.
In Northern Ireland it is essential that within the framework of government that I have described there should be no discrimination by nationalist against unionist or by unionist against nationalist. There should be no discrimination by Roman Catholic against Protestant or by Protestant against Roman Catholic. If we are to ensure no abuse of the modest additional powers that I would like to be given to the district councils or the powers that I would like to see conferred upon a regional or provincial council, added impetus and authority should be given to an ombudsman to prevent discrimination. That I would welcome.
Equal citizenship within a united kingdom is most emphatically not a prerequisite for peace, stability and reconciliation in Northern Ireland. It is simplistic to talk in terms of a solution, but it is the task of statesmen to follow the policy that offers the least danger and the greatest hope. The present policies will not be able to deliver the people of Northern Ireland from the agony through which they have passed. It is time for a fresh start to be made.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for this opportunity to make my maiden speech in a Northern Ireland debate. I also thank the Secretary of State and other hon. Members for the welcome that they have given me this afternoon.
The former right hon. Member for the South Down seat, Mr. Enoch Powell, said that the constituency that he represented was the most beautiful and that the people were the friendliest to be found. His words were magnanimous indeed, coming as they did immediately after a crushing personal result for the man who, if he were here still, would now be the Father of the House. While distancing myself from most of what my predecessor stood for, I take this opportunity to sympathise with him on a personal level and to pay tribute to him for his distingushed parliamentary career.
My own home town of Downpatrick in South Down holds the grave of St. Patrick, the missionary who brought the message of Christ to Ireland and the man who spread the gospel of peace among the Irish. It was from my

constituency that Christianity and learning spread thoughout the length and breadth of Ireland and, in the fullness of time, cast its civilising influence over large tracts of western Europe. In the age of darkness, the religious establishments in the County of Down did much to maintain the enlightenment, learning and beliefs that so characterised the Celtic Christian era.
Today, however, instead of that enlightenment and peace, we endure the distress of mistrust, fear, hatred and violence that exists between the two communities, both of which claim to adhere to the ideals of Patrick. Yet each still has a genuine longing for peace, founded on a just settlement that guarantees the rights of all and does not threaten the traditions, culture and identities of any.
To sit in this Chamber and to be a Member of the Parliament that has played so pivotal a role in the affairs of Irish history and the relationships between the Irish and British peoples is to feel a deep sense of the echoes of the past. Over the years, many parliamentarians have sought to solve the Irish problem. It was in this House that the great Irish leaders, O'Connell and Parnell, pleaded my country's cause. It was in this House, too, that leaders such as Gladstone and Asquith—all of their time—brought forward proposals to heal the divisions of Ireland. All of them failed, but in their failure they left a reminder to those who come after them that there is an unfinished agenda and a challenge that has yet to he tackled.
My constituency has recently witnessed some of the most callous atrocities in the catalogue of suffering and pain that Northern Ireland has experienced over the past two decades. Indeed, the experience of my constituency sums up the task facing all of us in seeking to bring stability and peace to Northern Ireland. Two communities live side by side. The overwhelming majority of people in each community simply want to live their lives and bring up their families in decency and integrity. However, the divisions remain, and those divisions are deep. Such divisions, and the alienation that flows from them, are not and cannot be healed by rhetoric, threats or security measures alone. It took a long, long time for that simple reality to be grasped. If the problems could have been solved in such a way, they would have been solved long before our time.
It is not possible to legislate away animosities that have existed for centuries, but it is possible to create a framework in which animosities and the sense of grievance no longer have fertile soil in which to grow. For that to happen, our people need to have a sense of belonging in their community, a perception that their own identity is honoured and a belief that they have a stake in the future of their country.
I submit that the Anglo-Irish Agreement provides a framework in which to achieve those objectives and that it has offered a real sense of hope to the people of Northern Ireland for the first time in many years. It is true that many unionist communities still reject the agreement and what it symbolises, but many have yet to learn the lesson that a community can only be built upon reconciliation and by providing all our people with the sense that their aspirations are legitimate and are recognised within the structures of their society. Is that too much to ask? Is it too much to ask the leaders of the unionist community to recognise that no one seeks to take away their rights or the rights of the people who they


represent? Is it too much to ask them to sit down with us, with open minds and hearts, and talk about the way forward for all of us?
Over the years, my party has sought to achieve a framework involving the two islands of Britain and Ireland as well as the two communities within Northern Ireland. We believe that that is the only way in which to achieve real stability and peace in our country. We believe in the coming together, one day, of all Irish people. We have a right to that aspiration and goal, just as the unionist community has a right to its aspirations and beliefs, its sense of security and identity. Those rights are not mutually exclusive. The Anglo-Irish Agreement seeks to provide a framework in which neither community loses anything, but both have their traditions and rights enhanced.
We in Northern Ireland stand at a unique moment in the saga of Irish history. We now have a framework to take us out of the prison of that history. The framework was constructed and endorsed by this very House in 1985. However, we must overcome the tendency to repeat our tragic past and all the suffering that has gone with it. The choice lies between clambering along the difficult road of hope and taking a free ride down into the depths of despair.
South Down is, indeed, a beautiful place, but beneath that beauty and the innate friendliness of its people there lies a disturbing degree of neglect and need. Thirteen years of direct rule have not led to any great solutions of our problems. Indeed the economic problems and social deprivation of South Down have been intensified and exacerbated during those years of direct rule. Worse still, people see no prospect of an improvement in their position in the immediate future, unless the Government take urgent and remedial action.
On this occasion, it is only possible to touch briefly on certain aspects of direct rule as it affects South Down and the other constituencies of Northern Ireland. First, I am concerned about the unequal distribution of resources, which has adversely affected my constituency. I refer to the lack of expenditure on adequate infrastructures and the lack of industrial development or the encouragement of new industries to be sited in the constituency, particularly in the areas of highest unemployment. Indeed, it would appear that a new Pale is being created around the shores of Belfast Lough, as a Pale was once created around Dublin city, from the 12th century to the 16th century.
I am greatly disappointed that stronger action has not been taken to enforce equality of opportunity in the employment that does exist or to ensure that discrimination is immediately and effectively penalised in every way. I regret to say that I refer to discrimination not only in private industry but in Government and semi-Government establishments. It is a matter within the power of the administration of Northern Ireland, and I hope that a new, fresh and vigorous look will be taken at the problem to initiate immediate changes.
In general, my constituency has not fared well under direct rule, whatever aspect one wishes to examine. Indeed, it appears to be greatly disadvantaged. In the first debate that I attended in this House, the Prime Minister commented on falling unemployment figures. However, in a throw-away phrase she excluded Northern Ireland as it remained outside the national trend. Not only are there no

jobs for thousands of people in my constituency; there is precious little hope for them either. They feel marginalised, forgotten and irrelevant. They have noted that the benefits of wealth creation have been denied them—that the bulk of spending in Northern Ireland has been centred on areas apart from theirs. Surely a task of economic policy must be to distribute resources where they are most needed and to provide outlets for people's talents. I hope that my work in this House will be strenuously devoted to making that a reality and to meeting the needs of my constituents.
The base industry in South Down is agriculture. It may surprise many hon. Members to learn that the entire constituency is designated as a less-favoured area under the EEC regulations; how disappointing it was to us, therefore—and particularly to small farmers—that agreement was not reached at Brussels last week. The changes have been too little, and the damning fact is that farm incomes in Northern Ireland—I say this with particular reference to South Down—are running at only 60 per cent. of the average for the past nine years. This dramatic collapse of incomes in our base industry is all the more keenly felt in the small farm areas that dominate South Down.
I have noticed how often one social disadvantage leads inexorably to the creation of another. I know that many hon. Members share my concern that those who have no jobs or who earn very low incomes should not be further isolated and deprived by cuts in the social welfare programme. They find themselves faced with a double-edged sword, which, on the one hand, denies them the means by which to support themselves and raise their families and, on the other, chops away the benefits that could help them enjoy even a basic quality of life. We must treat the causes and cushion the effects of unemployment with equal force.
Similarly, I am alarmed at what is happening to our health services. The mood for centralisation has become a runaway vehicle. We are faced with the threat of the closure of an acute hospital in the north of the constituency for reasons that have nothing whatever to do with the medical needs of the area. Our hospital is an integral and precious part of our lives, and to witness closure would be to contemplate medical murder for those patients whose future depends on immediate skilled help. We do not want the closure of a hospital but reinvestment of the resources that have already been taken away from it.
However, a more subtle danger that assails part of my constituency comes directly from this side of the water. It is the British Nuclear Fuels reprocessing plant at Sellafield. Today I voice the urgent concern of the people who live on the South Down coastland, which is directly opposite the Cumbrian site. I know that our concern is no less than that felt on this side of the Irish sea. In my constituency, we have a high incidence of leukaemia and cancer-related deaths, and we believe sincerely that the plant and the wastes that it discharges into the Irish sea have a significant bearing on the statistics. To put it bluntly, we suffer the ill-effects of the nuclear industry without having any of its so-called benefits, either in national wealth or in job provision.
I welcome last week's announcement by British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. to build a multi-million-pound treatment plant to remove some radioactive material from the waste being discharged into the Irish sea, but I believe that that announcement is a de facto admission that the current


levels of radioactive discharge into the Irish sea are harmful to the public. The partial clean-up has been brought about, not by the concern of the industry, but by a forceful and vigorous outcry against the sinister pollution which is being pumped daily into the Irish sea. It is my ambition to see that discharge totally stopped and, in the fullness of time, the Sellafield project, which was found so wanting in many aspects by an all-party Committee of the House, closed for ever.
On those issues, I sought a mandate from the people of South Down to represent them in Parliament and to fight for their concerns, and that is what I shall do. I appeal to all Members from the different parties who were elected in Northern Ireland to join together to try to bring peace and harmony to Northern Ireland, which will eventually lead to the better quality of life which we all so earnestly desire. We can do it jointly by trying to ease the worst effects of unemployment, poverty and deprivation. We can do it by coining together to create structures that would allow both communities to live in peace with each other and with a sense of mutual belonging. That is not an impossible goal. That is not an unrealistic aspiration.
We have all spent too long cursing the darkness, regretting the lost opportunities, and rejecting the possibility of future progress. Let us now work together for all the people of Northern Ireland so that we can build those bridges of healing and reconciliation. For too long, too many have slept in the wounds of others. We have a chance to work together in the interests of all our people. It is in that spirit that I intend to represent my constituents of South Down.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) struck the right note when he quoted his predecessor's words in praise of the beauty and the people of his constituency. De Valera once said that Down is the county that every Irishman loves best after his own. It is a great thing for the hon. Gentleman to represent South Down, and I am happy to follow him because, had my grandfather been a Methuselah and lived to the age of 129, he would have been a constituent of the hon. Gentleman's. I still have relatives living on the land in the townland of Ballinaskeagh. Had my grandfather lived long enough, he might have voted for the hon. Gentleman. He was a Liberal—I do not know how the hon. Gentleman stands in relation to them—a home ruler and a minister of the Presbyterian Church of Ireland. I sometimes wonder what he would have thought of his Roman Catholic, Tory, Unionist grandson.
I frequently read about the new Member for South Down in the Down Recorder and lesser newspapers, and I know of his prominence in the affairs of Downpatrick and further afield. I expected him to give us the excellent maiden speech to which he treated us this afternoon. It was eloquent, eirenic and humane, and it showed a great concern for the problems and privations of his constituency. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will contribute to future debates in the House, not only about his constituency and Northern Ireland but about the affairs of the kingdom as a whole.
Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman will have his work cut out to emulate the service given to the people of South Down by our former right hon. Friend Enoch Powell—given without regard to denomination or opinion. I

confess that I felt politically bereaved by his defeat, and I sense that the House as a whole regrets the loss of one of the great parliamentarians, one of the few orators and one of the few stylists of our time. Many people have observed the remorseless logic of Enoch Powell. Not quite so many have observed the poetry that informed his patriotism and his politics.
When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State opened the debate he quoted the Gracious Speech on the subject of Northern Ireland. It has not been lost on me that there was no specific reference in that speech from the Throne to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I know that the Social Democratic and Labour party likes the agreement. It is to its benefit, if not of its creation, but alas it has poisoned the polity of Northern Ireland. There has been much talk about the alienation of the minority in Northern Ireland from the institutions of the state. There has been propagandist exaggeration of that alienation. I do not think that it is as great as it is made out to be—outside hard republican elements—and there has certainly been no alienation from the institutions of the welfare state. But has it been worth while to replace the alienation of the minority with the alienation of the majority?
The Friends of the Union, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) and I play some part, will be publishing as a pamphlet two articles on the Anglo-Irish Agreement which appeared in the journal of the Policy Studies Institute and in the Belfast Telegraph of 15 and 16 June. Those articles were written by a distinguished Northern Ireland civil servant, Dr. John Oliver, who thus sums up the fruits of the agreement:
Continuing (and even bolder) Republican violence"—
he might have added "sectarian violence"—
a widening gulf between ordinary unionists and nationalists in Ulster; and a worsening economic outlook.
As the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) indicated, Cardinal O'Fiaich said no less.
The absence for a time of the Ulster Unionist parties from the House did not surprise me; I have shared their anguish. I welcome their return, but let not the House be deceived. They have not suddenly fallen in love with the Anglo-Irish Agreement. There is a change of tactics, not a change of heart, on that matter. However, there is now a chance for us all to do better for Northern Ireland—to put "An end to drift", to use the title of the task force document. I welcome the help that Ulster Members can now give in the search for, to quote that document,
an alternative to and replacement of the Anglo-Irish Agreement".
The Secretary of State referred to a review being possible next year.
I, like the right hon. Member for Strangford, want the closest co-operation between this country and the Republic. One of my charges against the agreement is that it has worsened relations between Irish people in the two parts of the island.

Mr. Gow: Does my hon. Friend recall the words of the present Prime Minister of the Irish Republic on 12 October last year when, speaking at Bodenstown, he said:
In the 12 months that have passed since the agreement was signed, the position of Nationalists in the North has in fact seriously worsened.
Does not the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic agree with my hon. Friend that the Anglo-Irish Agreement has made even worse the position of nationalists in Northern Ireland?

Sir John Biggs-Davison: I am grateful for that intervention. The agreement has worsened the position of nationalists. It has put nationalists in many places in great fear of their lives. I refer to the recrudescence of sectarian murders and violence.

Mr. Hume: Will the hon. Gentleman please face the facts? In the election that has just finished, when people went down to the ballot box freely to state their positions, the only party in Northern Ireland that increased both its representation and its vote was the party that fully and unequivocally supports the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: There are many reasons why people vote for parties. There is always a discrepancy in Northern Ireland between the opinions of the people expressed in public opinion surveys and the way that they vote. There is always the tendency, when faced with an election, to vote tribally. This is something that I much regret and it is one important reason why I favour what is called the solution of integration.

Mr. Mallon: The hon. Gentleman referred to a speech at Bodenstown. Surely the people best able to gauge the opinions of nationalists in Northern Ireland are those who work among and represent nationalists in Northern Ireland. As to the Anglo-Irish Agreement, would he not accept that on three occasions during the past decade or more there have been serious attempts by the British Government to deal with the problem in Northern Ireland? First was the Sunningdale agreement. Outside of that agreement the Unionist parties tried to bring down what was the devolved Government agreed by a British Government and a British Parliament. Second, a conference was held in 1978 by the then Secretary of State, Sir Humphrey Atkins, outside of which the Official Unionist party was holding a picket and not taking part. The third attempt—the Anglo-Irish Agreement—again found the same Unionist parties outside of an agreement reached by a British Government and a British Parliament. Is it a case of everybody being out of step except our Johnny?

Sir John Biggs-Davison: I had better not give way any more lest I keep my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen out of the debate. The hon. Gentleman referred to Sunningdale. The main reason that Sunningdale failed was that Dublin and his own party claimed and got too much. That point is well made in the articles by Dr. John Oliver to which I referred.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) asked me whether I had read the speech of the Taoiseach at Bodenstown. I have, and I have it constantly on file. I would like to pay tribute to the present Taoiseach because he, with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, brought into fruitful existence the Anglo-Irish Inter-Governmental Council. That Anglo-Irish Inter-Governmental Council was on the right lines because it was on the basis of reciprocity between the two sovereign powers. When we come to change the Anglo-Irish Agreement we must see that what takes place is on the basis of reciprocity, which is the only basis for fruitful cooperation. I favour the institution of a parliamentary body. However, I would insist that such a parliamentary body should be representative of the Parliaments of the two sovereign states—the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and representative of Oireachtas Eireann.
The Anglo-Irish Agreement has other defects but there is one more that I will mention. It is flawed by insistence on the continued pursuit of what I believe to be a will-of-the-wisp-devolved Government. The task force, in its document, declared the objective of devolved Government. One hears other opinions as well from unionists. Devolved government can only further differentiate and distance Northern Ireland from Great Britain. If we go in for devolved government, we shall only stimulate separatist demands in Scotland and Wales which are already beginning to revive.
The party of the hon. Member for South Down would take no part in Mr. Prior's Assembly and would not talk to unionists in that Assembly. However, in this Parliament, rather than in prefabricated checks and balances Assemblies—I am not speaking of regional or local authorities—this dialogue can and does take place between nationalists and unionists.
When replying to the hon. Member for Foyle, I referred to the discrepancy between the opinions of Northern Ireland people as expressed at elections and as expressed in opinion surveys. If one examines opinion surveys over a long period, they are consistent. The latest, by Coopers and Lybrand, in a sample of 1,100 Northern Ireland voters, found 35 per cent. in favour of integration, 24 per cent. in favour of power sharing, 9 per cent. in favour of a united Ireland, 9 per cent. in favour of an independent Ulster, and a measly 6 per cent. in favour of the status quo—the system which the House is asked to renew today.
I do not wish to repeat the trenchant arguments about the misconduct of Northern Ireland business here or the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) for a Select Committee. It is an unjust and undemocratic system which we are operating in respect of Northern Ireland. We have heard again the arguments on both sides about local government.

Ms. Short: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir John Biggs-Davison: No, I said that I would not give way again, because I have already given way so often. I do not want to keep other hon. Members out of the debate.
The SDLP does not want to make progress with local government lest it lessens the Government's enthusiasm for legislative devolution and power sharing. It wants Northern Ireland to stay different. There has been much criticism of the so-called unionist veto. Let there not be a nationalist veto in its place. Nationalism is entitled to be respected, but not to dictate. I will give way to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short).

Ms. Short: The hon. Gentleman has referred to one opinion poll and it is important that we remember also the opinion poll that was conducted in Britain and published in the Daily Express, which showed that 66 per cent. of the British people wished to withdraw from Northern Ireland. They were divided roughly equally between those who thought that Ireland could be reunited and those who thought that there should be an independent Northern Ireland. It is part of the political picture that people in Britain wish to dissociate themselves from what is being done in our name in Northern Ireland.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: I do not think that the issue was put to the people of Great Britain fairly and squarely. They were not asked, "Do you want to expel from the United Kingdom people who want to be loyal to the


United Kingdom and remain within it?" I do not think that the issue was put to them in those honest terms. If it were so put, I do not think that we would get anything but a decent answer from the decent people of this country. However, I was discussing the views of the people of Northern Ireland. I thank the hon. Member for Ladywood for placing on the record of the House the facts of the opinion poll that was conducted by the Daily Express. I wish now to bring my remarks to a conclusion, which I shall do in about half a minute.
The battle against terrorism has not nearly been won. Great progress can be made towards defeating it, however, once we convince the terrorists that they will not succeed. Every failed political initiative gives them the feeling that if they continue they can bomb, blast or bore the British out of Ireland. How do we convince them that they will not succeed? We shall do so by proclaiming that this part of the United Kingdom will henceforth be governed as truly a part of the United Kingdom. It is time for Ministers to reckon with the opinions revealed in the survey that I have cited and in many others, come down from the colonial fastness of Stormont and listen to the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Ken Livingstone: I shall start by praising my predecessor, Mr. Reg Freeson. There are some who may he surprised at that. Our differences were political and I do not think that anyone would suggest that he did not serve his constituency as well and as excellently as any other hon. Member. Therefore, I praise his record in this place, although I played some part in ending his presence here. Given how bad the post is currently, I cannot report that I have had a letter of congratulations from him yet. I shall notify the House when t do. I would not urge right hon. and hon. Members to hold their breath.
I want to thank all the officials of the House, including the police, for their assistance. I cannot recall anywhere that I have been where there is such a degree of helpfulness, general good humour and pleasantness. I am certain that other new Members think the same. I do not know why that should be. Perhaps close proximity to 649 fellow politicians induces this state of good humour, or perhaps there are those who have a private joke that they are not telling the rest of us.
I wish to start by making clear my position on violence. I condemn without equivocation all acts of violence, but I am not prepared to be uneven-handed. I do not believe that we should condemn the violence of the IRA and produce a less strident condemnation of the violence of other extra-legal organisations. Nor do I believe that we should be any the less outraged when those who operate on behalf of the British state and security forces go beyond the law or the conventions of decency, as has occasionally happened. Either we condemn all violence or we are not placed to condemn any of it.
Like many others, I do not believe that direct rule is a workable option for Ireland. I believe that nothing short of a united Ireland will bring about an end to the troubles that have assailed our involvement with that island over hundreds of years, with an especial viciousness over the past two decades. Throughout my parliamentary career I shall continue to press at every opportunity for a withdrawal of Britain from Ireland and the opening to a united Ireland in which the Irish people can decide how best to govern themselves.
There are many inevitable contradictions—I am sure that many right hon. and hon. Members will not share this view—in what I perceive as a colonial situation. As in the past, it is inevitable that problems will arise when one power occupies wholly or in part another nation with a separate culture and identity. With the best intentions in the world, the occupying power is led into abuse of its authority, and in so doing alienates key sections of the community.
I should imagine that much the most effective method of recruitment into the IRA has been the consistent abuse of power over decades by those who held the whip hand while Stormont existed through 50 years of misrule. The only thing that is remarkable is that it took 50 years before the present violence erupted. That suggests a degree of patience and tolerance on the part of the minority of Northern Ireland that I do not think many other peoples around the world would necessarily have been prepared to equal.
There have been many instances when the present Government's policies and their agents have been ideal recruiting agents for the IRA. The attitude of the Government towards the hunger strike did more to boost support for those pursuing a violent solution for Northern Ireland than anything that they could have done themselves.
There is no doubt in my mind that the Royal Ulster Constabulary had a shoot-to-kill policy. That has been successfully covered up, but it came close to exposure when Mr. John Stalker was set to investigate it. When it became clear that he was not prepared to be corrupt and that he would not do a whitewash job to let the RUC off the hook, the British establishment, through all its usual means, ensured that he was removed from his task. I wish that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would pursue the inquiry with the same vigour that he condemns the terrorists and ensure that the results of it are brought to the Floor of the House as rapidly as possible as a matter of public debate. As long as the minority in Northern Ireland believes that there is one law and one tone of condemnation of violence for one section of the community but not the other, we shall not be able to achieve any real progress towards peace.
Representatives of the unionist parties have talked about double standards, and these cannot be denied. We have heard since the Gracious Speech that the British Government intend to continue with the policies that they have been pursuing in the north and possibly to sharpen them to end discrimination against the minority in employment. I welcome that, but if it is good enough for Northern Ireland, why do the British Government do everything possible to prevent Labour councils in Britain that wish to adopt similar policies from ending discrimination against minorities in Britain? We shall not be able to unite the people of Northern Ireland while we have a policy stance for them that is different from that for the rest of the United Kingdom. That makes a mockery of the idea that this is a united kingdom.
One of the greatest problems to arise during the present troubles has been the backlash against the Irish community in Britain, which my constituents in Brent have suffered. Far too many innocent people are subject to harassment by the use of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. It has been used in a way which was never intended. Still today not 1 per cent. of those detained and harassed by the security forces—I am talking about individual


Irish women and men making their way backwards and forwards between the two countries—is ever convicted of any form of crime. The Prevention of Terrorism Act is being used by agents of the British state to harass those who actively campaign for a united Ireland. Every time they do it a nail is driven further into the concept of our remaining with any hold in Ireland.
As many other nations have found—for example, the French in Algeria—it is inevitable that if we set out to hold a nation against its will, however good our intentions, abuses of power will occur. I wish to draw attention to that by referring to one specific instance.
During my election campaign in Brent, East, there was an unusual public meeting. An individual was invited to it who has never been a Socialist, who will never be prepared to vote Labour and who thinks that the Tory party is the natural governing party of Britain. He was invited to share a platform with myself and some of the relatives of those who have been subject to miscarriages of justice by the British courts over issues of bombing here in Britain. We invited Mr. Fred Holroyd. For those who do not know, Mr. Holroyd served in Northern Ireland with distinction. As I said, he is no Socialist. He comes from a military family. He went to a Yorkshire grammar school. His whole objective in life was to serve in the British Army. He believed in it totally. He enlisted as a private in the gunners, and three years later he was commissioned into the Royal Corps of Transport. He volunteered for the Special Military Intelligence unit in Northern Ireland when the present troubles began, and he was trained at the Joint Services School of Intelligence. Once his training was finished, he was stationed in Portadown, where, for two and a half years, he ran a series of intelligence operations. I quote him so that there can be no suspicion that he might be a secret member of the Militant Tendency or a secret republican. At the public meeting, his words were that he believed that the Army officers and men with whom he worked were
genuinely honest men trying to do the best job in the circumstances. They were in a no-win situation.
When he was recruited as an M16 officer, he said of them that they were not disagreeable; their ethics were reasonable; they were seeking a political solution. His complaint, which eventually led to his removal from the Army and an attempt to discredit him, which has been largely successful, was made when the M16 operation was taken over by M15 in 1975—by many of the same people who are dealt with in Peter Wright's book, and many of the same people who are alleged to have been practising treason against the elected Labour Government of the time. He said that once the M15 took over the reasonable ethics of M16 were pushed aside by operatives in the intelligence world who supported the views of Mr. Kitson and the policies and tactics of subverting the subverters. I recommend Brigadier Kitson's words to those who are not aware of them. His attitude was to create a counter-terror group, to have agents provocateur, to infiltrate, and to run a dirty tricks campaign in an attempt to discredit the IRA.
Mr. Holroyd continued to believe that what he was doing was in the best interests of the British state until early in 1975, when Captain Robert Nairac, who, as many hon. Members will know, was later murdered by the IRA, went into his office, fresh from a cross-border operation

—something that of course is completely illegal—and showed him the colour photographs that had been taken by Captain Nairac's team. Captain Nairac had crossed the border with some volunteers from the UDF. He had assassinated John Francis Green, an active member of the IRA who was living south of the border. As an agent of the British Government operating across the border as an assassin he had brought back photographs as proof of that operation. When Captain Nairac showed the photographs, Mr. Holroyd started to object, not because he objected to an active member of the IRA being assassinated in a highly illegal cross-border raid but because he realised that once the British state started to perpetrate such methods there was no way that eventually Britain would not alienate vast sections of the community and eventually lose the struggle for the hearts and minds of the Irish people.
Holroyd then started to object to the use of such illegal methods by M15 officers. He was immediately shuffled to one side by the expedient method of being taken to a mental hospital and being declared basically unfit for duty. During the month that he spent in the British mental hospital, the three tests that were administered to him were completely successfully passed. Certainly, over a decade later, having met him, I can see no evidence whatsoever that he was in some sense mentally unbalanced. He was a spy who realised that the operations of the British Government were counter-productive. He started to object, and was pushed to one side for his pains.
I raise the link with Captain Robert Nairac because, as I said, Fred Holroyd had qualms about this but was not particularly shocked; these things happen in a war. The matter needs to be investigated. I cannot prove the claims but allegations are being made extensively here in Britain, in republican circles and on Irish radio and television. A particularly horrifying incident that many hon. Members will remember was the murder of three members of the Miami showband—completely innocent musicians with no political affiliations whatsoever. It took place in the midst of the ceasefire that had been negotiated by the then Labour Government and the IRA. The right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) pushed it through and sustained it, although there was considerable opposition from within the security services and within many political parties. The Labour Government did everything possible to make the ceasefire work, but it was not wholly accepted within the apparatus of M15—our operatives who allegedly were working on behalf of the British state in Northern Ireland.
What is particularly disturbing is that what looked at the time like a random act of maniacal violence and sectarian killing now begins to take on a much more sinister stance. It has begun to emerge that Captain Robert Nairac is quite likely to have been the person who organised the killing of the three Miami showband musicians. The evidence for that allegation is forensic and members of the UDF are prepared to say that they were aware of the dealings between members of the UDF gang who actually undertook the murder of the Miami showband musicians. The evidence is quite clear. The same gun that was used by Captain Nairac on his cross-border trip to assassinate John Francis Green was used in the Miami showband massacre.
Earlier this year, the radio and television service of southern Ireland, RTE, showed a documentary in which the makers—not myself; no one could accuse RTE of


being pro-IRA—that allege they have now had contacts with members of the UDF in that area who say that Captain Nairac passed the explosives and the guns to the UDF and set up the killing of the Miami showband musicians. If that is true, it needs to be investigated. The allegation was made on the broadcasting networks of southern Ireland. It is supported by men who served on behalf of Britain as spies in the area at the time. It needs to be investigated and disproved, or the people behind it rooted out. If one wanted to find a way of ending the ceasefire that had been negotiated between the Labour Government and the IRA, what better way to do so than to encourage random sectarian killings? I believe that that was happening.
It is likely that many of the officers mentioned in Peter Wright's book who were practising treason against the British Government at home were also practising treason against the British Government in Ireland. If the allegations are true, they were prepared to murder innocent Catholics to start a wave of sectarian killing which would bring to an end the truce that the Labour Government had negotiated with the IRA. No democratic society can allow that sort of allegation to go uninvestigated. It is made by people who served on our behalf as intelligence officers in the area.
We saw in last Sunday's edition of The Observer that another intelligence officer, Colin Wallace, who was closely linked with Fred Holroyd in a campaign to expose what was going on, has been dismissed as irrelevant by the British Government. We see now that The Observer, using forensic tests, has been able to demonstrate that the notes that he wrote were not written in the past couple of years by somebody who is embittered and is trying to cash in on what has started to come out. A clear analysis of the ink that was used in the notes shows that they were written in the early 1970s. Slowly, it all begins to pull together.
The interesting thing about the Peter Wright case is that in his defence in court he said that he was a loyal servant of Britain, and that he sought only to expose corruption and spies in Britain and an establishment that covered them up. One of the arguments by which he demonstrated his loyalty to Britain was when he said in his book that he did not deal with what he knew about operations in Ireland because that could still be damaging to the British Government.
One needs to take together the accusations of Wallace and Holroyd and link them clearly to what is being said by Peter Wright. There was not just treason by some M15 officers in Britain. Treason was also taking place in Ireland. Those employed by the British state are alleged to have been responsible for killing innocent civilians in order to end a ceasefire with which they disagreed because their political objectives were different from those of the Labour Government of the day. That is a most horrifying crime.
Wallace and Holroyd are making these quite specific allegations. They are now drafting a book that will expose much more, and we need to ask why the British Government take no action to stop them or to silence them. They pursue Peter Wright, but they are terrified that if they take Wallace and Holroyd to court they will expose in court things that will shake the Government to its foundations.
A stupid thing happened when the British Army decided to get Holroyd out and discredit him. The officer put in as his replacement, and who was unaware of what had been going on, arrived in the office and assembled all

of Holroyd's papers into a large container and dispatched them to his home. Before the British Government start rubbishing Holroyd too flamboyantly, they should be warned that he retains almost all the case papers that were in his control. They deal with his operations and his work and they are safely out of this country and beyond the reach of the Government.
We must have a full investigation. Before I could happily vote for this extension of direct rule, I want to see some evidence that the Government are prepared to ensure that these abuses are exposed. I want them to guarantee that similar abuses are not continuing. The whole series of events about which I have spoken must be investigated. Very soon we must have the full evidence about the shoot-to-kill policy of the RUC because I have no doubt that that is being covered up. It would have been most useful if John Stalker had been able to conclude his inquiry after the attempt to discredit him had been exposed and overturned by the local police authority.
We have to examine other allegations made on RTE that M15 officers were engaged in undermining the power sharing Executive set up by the Government of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). We have to look again at the allegations by Colin Wallace about the Kincora boys' home scandal. It has been suggested that young boys in a home effectively controlled by M15 were buggered so that Protestant politicians could be blackmailed and silenced by M15. 'That allegation cannot continue to drift around. It must be investigated and the truth exposed. The longer the British Government cover up and deny all this and refuse to investigate, the more the impression will be created that they know full well what has been going on and that far too many members of the Government are the beneficiaries of these acts of treason by M15 officers in Britain and abroad.
I do not believe for a minute that these things could have been going on without members of the Conservative party being kept informed in the generality if not in specific details. It looks increasingly likely that Mr. Airey Neave was in touch with some of these officers, and it is certainly the case that Airey Neave delivered a speech that had been——

Mr. Gow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is with very great reluctance that I intervene during the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), but will you please make it clear to him, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that references to Airey Neave of the kind that we have heard are deeply offensive?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Hon. Members making their first speech in the House are usually heard without interruption. So far I have heard nothing in the speech of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) that is out of order.

Mr. Livingstone: May I make it clear to the House that I am reporting allegations that hon. Members have read in newspapers and that are reported on radio and television both here and abroad. They are made by intelligence officers who served at the time in Ireland on behalf of the British Government. It may well be that the allegations are all a tissue of lies, but can we imagine any other Western Government who would allow such damaging allegations to circulate month after month and year after year and not move to lance the boil? They would either deal with the allegations or demonstrate that they


were untrue. The Prime Minister's day-by-day refusal to investigate what was happening in M15 at that time can only lead a large number of reasonable people both here and abroad to believe that there is some element of truth in the allegations now circulating.
If Conservative Members are shocked that allegations are made about Airey Neave, they should join me in demanding a full investigation so that Airey Neave's name can be cleared. Why just Airey Neave? The allegations that I have outlined to the House about Captain Robert Nairac should also be investigated, as should the allegations about the Kincora boys' home. They should be investigated by a Committee of the House so that we can know the truth. As long as the Prime Minister continues to resist this, and as long as it is quite obvious that she was the main beneficiary of the work of these traitorous officers in M15, many reasonable people cannot avoid the conclusion that she was kept informed to some degree via Airey Neave who had close links with the intelligence services. He made a speech for which false information was provided by Colin Wallace, and Colin Wallace now admits that.
There is something rotten at the heart of the British security services, and we will not have a safe democracy until it is exposed in its entirety and dealt with.

Rev. William McCrea: Tradition demands that one congratulates an hon. Member on his maiden speech. However, I cannot congratulate the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) because the tradition of the House is that maiden speeches should be non-controversial.
I listened to the maiden speech by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and pay tribute to his predecessor, Mr. Enoch Powell, for the speeches that he made in the House and the contribution that he made to British democracy and the traditions of the House.
It will come as no surprise to the hon. Member for South Down to hear that I do not agree with his assessment of many of the constitutional issues that he mentioned. I sympathise with him on many of the day-to-day problems that he as a Member of Parliament will face. He mentioned some of them in his speech, and, of course, hon. Members know about such problems. I trust that the contributions by hon. Members will add to instead of detracting from the debate.
The House is being asked to continue direct rule, but overshadowing the debate is the Anglo-Irish Agreement. It will come as no surprise to hon. Members to hear me say that that agreement is obnoxious, undemocratic and blood-soaked. As the Prime Minister said, it came into existence because she could not allow the murders to continue. That was an acknowledgement that it was the terrorist activity of the IRA that drove her to the table to negotiate with the Republic of Ireland.
This agreement has been forced on an unwilling people. It will come as no surprise to hon. Members that I return to the House with the solid support of the unionist population, many of whom are not Protestants, but Roman Catholics. They are British, want to remain British and are proud of their British heritage. They do not want any interference from a foreign state. If any interference is rejected by them, much less should this House and

Parliament give that foreign state powers over the internal affairs of a part of Her Majesty's domain in the United Kingdom.
It is a reflection on hon. Members representing the Social Democratic and Labour party that they admit that it takes the Government of the Republic of Ireland to express the fears of the nationalist population and that they themselves are totally inadequate and unable to express those fears or to get any reaction. Instead, they must rely on foreign Ministers and tootsie down to Dublin to get any action. That is an admission, and I understand the position and feelings on that of members of the SDLP.

Mr. Mallon: rose——

Rev. William McCrea: No, I shall not give way, because, to the best of my knowledge, I have only a short time, and I wish to make a few salient points in the debate.
I am a representative of the people of Mid-Ulster, and unionism will not rest until the Anglo-Irish Agreement is obliterated. The agreement is not in the interests of the people or of the unionist population. There are some who do not like to hear that message. However, let us be absolutely clear that the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland were not consulted before the agreement was brought into being, nor do they agree with the essence of that agreement. They are as opposed to that agreement today as they ever were, and they will continue their opposition to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Every effort that they make will be to ensure the removal of and a replacement for the agreement. Their resolve is as determined this evening as it has ever been.
All the honeyed words that I have heard today cannot wipe away the fact that many hon. Members are not really interested in fair play for unionists. We shall see that in the legislation that will come before the House in a week's time. Many hon. Members are not interested in what the people of Ulster think about the opening of licensed premises on a Sunday. Those hon. Members do not care. They have no concern about what the ordinary Ulster man feels about that. They will listen to and pull out of the hat those who agree with them. However, they will close their ears to Ulster lest they hear something that they do not like. Some hon. Members have the one intention of ensnaring the unionists into their own destruction.
People in Ulster are aware of some of the plots and plans that have been made to destroy the position of the unionists and the integrity of unionism in Northern Ireland. I know that some hon. Members do not accept that the Anglo-Irish Agreement has lived up to any of the points or principles that were suggested for it. We should remember that it was Ministers who said that this agreement would be judged on its fruits.
What were the three conditions? They were peace, stability and reconciliation. If any hon. Member can tell the House that peace, stability and reconciliation have been enhanced in Northern Ireland by the Anglo-Irish Agreement, I assure them that they do so with the deliberate intent of misleading the House. There is not peace. I can prove that since the Anglo-Irish Agreement my constituents continue to die. However, I am supposed to tell them that, after so many of them have died, we may get peace. I can remember a member of the Government standing at the Dispatch Box and telling us, just a few months after the agreement came into existence, that we should not expect a change in the security situation


overnight. However, it is now 20 months later, many more people are in their coffins, and we are still not one step nearer to peace, stability or reconciliation in the Province nor have we gained anything on the job front. Members of the SDLP cannot tell me that their constituents are better off now in terms of employment now than they were at the beginning of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Jobs continue to go to the wall. Those hon. Members can have their liberal debates and meetings at the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, but the reality is that their constituents know exactly what is happening.
I appreciate that it is hard for many hon. Members to understand what is happening on the ground in Ulster, for the simple reason that even the Ministers fly in and out of Stormont without getting to the grass roots or down to the ground where the ordinary man in the street could tell them what was happening. Many right hon. and hon. Members do not take the time to find out what is happening in Northern Ireland and what the people in Ulster are suffering and enduring under this blood-soaked so-called heralded agreement that everybody is supposed to buy as the answer to all our ills.
I advise hon. Members that in fact in the recent election Sinn Fein increased its vote to 83,000, which is only 17,000 less than its highest vote at the height of the hunger strike. Such was the result of the 1987 election. Those are the facts whether hon. Members want to believe them, or whether they want to close their eyes and allow the Province to run on to the precipice of disaster and destruction. Those are the solid facts. [Interruption.] It may be a smiling matter for the Secretary of State, but I assure him that it is not a smiling matter to see coffins in one's constituency. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman would not know anything about that. He came to my constituency, and a coffin lay just 300 yd from the place that he visited. However, he turned in his limousine and went back to Belfast after visiting the Newtownstewart police station, without sympathising with the relatives or walking into the house wherein lay a coffin with the body of an honourable constituent of mine. That is one reason why this House is distant from the realities of what is happening in our Province at the moment.
We were told that the Anglo-Irish Agreement was a two-way street, but it is one-way traffic. The House should realise that Charles Haughey, the Prime Minister of the south of Ireland, has no intention of delivering extradition, because all that he wants to do is to extract concessions from the Ministers of Her Majesty's Government and to insult the good people of our Province.

Mr. John Butterfill: Does the hon. Gentleman recollect that on 30 June a joint communiqué was issued in which he said that he agreed absolutely to support all of the intentions of that joint communiqué and the objectives of the Anglo-Irish Agreement?

Rev. William McCrea: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. However, I should like to remind him of what the Prime Minister of the south of Ireland said. A newspaper headline said:
Pub bomb trial threat to Haughey's extradition law.
Mr. Haughey said, "Give us a look into the pub bombings. Let us have that case reopened and then I shall give you extradition."
I should like to thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention because it has been most helpful to the

debate. That is exactly what I said. Mr. Haughey is extracting concession after concession from Her Majesty's Government and holding over them the threat, "If you do not give us the concession of reopening the pub trial, we shall not allow you to have extradition." That is the most despicable and disgraceful stance of any Parliament that is supposed to be under democratic control.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is it not a fact that 22 members of Fianna Fail have signed a resolution to the Dail saying that there will be no extradition unless there is a judicial inquiry into all of the cases of IRA people held in prison in this country and that the matter of the Guildford pub bombings must be reopened before they will even consider having such a matter discussed?

Rev. William McCrea: I agree with my hon. Friend. The House had better realise the background of the Prime Minister of the south of Ireland. He was one of the supporters and financiers of terrorism, destruction and murder of people in our Province. That is the person whom we as unionists are told to entrust with our future. We are told that it is safe in Charles Haughey's hands, because he is not paying for bombs or bullets any more—he is now the revered Prime Minister of the south of Ireland.
My hon. Friend has stated correctly the position of Fianna Fail. It has not changed and its members are as great republicans and enemies of unionism today as they were in the beginning. What Charles Haughey has said shows that political expediency allows him to play along with the Anglo-Irish Agreement until he extracts every possible concession, when he will ditch it if it proves better for him politically. Nobody understands that thinking better than SDLP Members, but it is politically expedient for them to say something else. When the time comes to change horses, the House had better realise that Charles Haughey will put egg on the faces of Ministers as long as it keeps it off his face.
Unionists have already made their concession. We have said that the Anglo-Irish Agreement need not he repudiated by the Government for negotiations to take place, but need only be suspended and the workings of Maryfield closed. That concession goes unequalled, unmatched and unanswered. Until the Government match it, there cannot be further unionist concessions, or we would be in danger of becoming the suckers. We would be sucked into a position that hitherto we have repudiated. If that happens, the people of the Province will choose who they want to speak for them.
We have recognised that the struggle is a battle of wills and determination. The Government have worked on the principle that in time unionists will come to terms with the agreement. Our every move must be governed by this factor and we must give them no hope of scoring on that point. The people of Ulster are totally and unreservedly opposed to the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and the unionists declared that under a month ago. It is despicable to suggest, now that the election is out of the way, that something should be done that is different from what we told the people of Ulster. That is the difference with Ulster politicians. Our people expect their politicians to tell them what they believe and to do exactly what they say. It seems to me that others believe that, once the election is over arid the people have been soft-soaped into voting for them again, they can do something different. That may be the


politics of some right hon. and hon. Members but it is not the principle on which Ulster unionists are basing their politics, especially with regard to the constitutional future of their country and the determination to be an equal part of the United Kingdom.
There are those who tell us that the answer to Ulster's problems is power sharing—bring the SDLP into the Executive. There is nothing further from reality. Some 42 per cent. of voters voted for this Government, which gives them the right to rule the country. Many of their policies are the opposite of what other parties think is good for the country, but the Government have won the day and, by getting the majority of Members, they have the right to form the Government. That is why we do not have a conglomeration of Conservative, Labour, Liberal and SDP—if it is still in existence—Members on the Front Bench. We have a Conservative Government because they believe that it is what British democracy is all about. No matter how diverse their policies are from those of other parties, they have the right to push through legislation on the economy, health and social services or on any other subject.
Some 42 per cent. of voters in Scotland voted for the Labour party, and the Labour party has now said that it has the right to speak for Scotland and that, if there were a devolved Parliament for Scotland, it would have the right to form the Administration. The Conservative party objects to devolution because it knows that the Labour party has majority support in Scotland. It plays little games with Scotland as well.
If 42 per cent. support gives the Conservative party the right to form an Administration in the United Kingdom and if 42 per cent. gives the Labour party the right to form an Administration in Scotland, then 70 per cent. in Ulster is enough for us to form an Administration there. If the Labour party believes in what it is saying and it is not all hot air, eyewash and hypocritical statements, it should be crying out for a proper, devolved government in Ulster where 70 per cent. have the right to rule. People had better realise that what is planned for Ulster is not real democracy, but democracy rigged in whatever way the majority of the House decides.
The House heard the hon. Member for South Down talk about peace, reconciliation and the rest of it, and I saw Members nodding approval. Who would not say that the great goal for Ulster is peace and for the United Kingdom stability or that what we want is reconciliation? However, does the House realise what the SDLP is doing? In Enniskillen council and Fermanagh council, reconciliation for the SDLP means voting for Sinn Fein to give one of its members the chairmanship of the council and to keep the unionists out of every key position.
The same thing happened in Omagh in my constituency. The SDLP voted with Sinn Fein to give its member chairmanship of the council and to keep the unionists out of every possible position. However, the plan backfired in Omagh. After getting the chairmanship, Sinn Fein made a sly move on the SDLP. The House and the United Kingdom should realise that that is the reality.

Mr. Mallon: Will the hon. Gentleman be consistent and confirm that, were it not for the courage of the SDLP in standing up to Sinn Fein in his constituency, he would not be here and this Palace would not have its clown prince?

Rev. William McCrea: I am here like any other Member. I did not ask the SDLP to stand in my constituency. If it wants to do so, that is up to its members. I am not begging that party or Sinn Fein to stand or not to stand. I represent the constituency of Mid-Ulster with a majority of 9,360, by the grace of God. I do not need lectures from the hon. Gentleman, who tootsied with the Sinn Feiners to ensure that he held his seat. Let us not go down that lane. I should be happy to look at the reputation of the hon. Gentleman and his stance on security, and tell the House what the results of his stand have been in Newry and Armagh and for UDR men. I do not want to go down that road, but if the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) wants that, I am happy to tread it any day to tear off the mask from that hon. Gentleman who tells us that he is for reconciliation. It suits the occasion and the House to hear about reconciliation, but I am talking about the solemn, hard realities that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh does not want to hear.
With regard to the Dublin Government, I believe that it is true that the people of Ulster want to live in peace with their neighbours and that they want to have normal relationships with a foreign state. There is no great urge among unionists not to have peace and a normal relationship between the two countries. However, when it comes to the meddling and interference of foreign Ministers in the affairs of Northern Ireland, that is repugnant to unionists. In the same way, it would be repugnant to Scotland and to Wales. Indeed, it would be repugnant to England if Pakistan sought to stick its nose into England's affairs because there is a considerable number of persons from that country living in England. It is totally repugnant to us to have a foreign state meddling in our affairs. Every time that Britain has had its back to the wall the south of Ireland has knifed it. It is repugnant to us that persons from a foreign state should have a part in the internal affairs of our country.
Unionists' opposition to the Anglo-Irish Agreement goes on. We are totally opposed to the agreement and our protest against it goes on. If any hon. Member believes that we have come to this House to play nice parliamentary games, to be good boys, to sit in the corner nodding our heads at the right time and walking through the Lobby, they have another think coming. The House had better think again. We will make our opposition to the agreement heard in this House at every available opportunity. We will not stop until the day comes when this iniquitous and undemocratic agreement is buried in the Province. That agreement will not be resurrected, for it will be buried in a Sadducee's grave. Let no one be under any delusion where we stand concerning the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
Whether or not hon. Members like what I said, they had better remember this: in common with them, I stood for election and I have a mandate from the electorate for my stance. The many unionists who have come to this House from Ulster have a mandate to oppose the Anglo-Irish Agreement. No packaging, no lovely ribbons, no decoration and no tinsel put upon that agreement will ever convince the people of Ulster to sell their future and put their children in the hands of an enemy state. We are British, and we are proud of it. The people of Ulster will make the final decision whenever the day has settled and whenever we see exactly what the British Government mean.
In common with the leader of my party, my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), I shall read carefully what the Secretary of State has said. I shall certainly not read into it something that I want to read into it. I shall read it exactly as it is and weigh carefully actions with words, because there is an old saying that actions speak louder than words.
In the past we have had fancy, honeyed words. When they put the rope around someone's neck and are about to hang him, they still say that it is in his best interests that the rope be tightened and he is hung up to die. I have no intention of allowing the good people along the border constituency of Mid-Ulster to be hung up on any republican rope.

Mr. John Hume: We have a welcome opportunity to assess the current situation in Northern Ireland as we debate the renewal of what all would agree is a far from perfect system of government. However, whenever discussions on Northern Ireland take place in this House I am amazed at the number of speakers who avoid the central issue.
Few of today's speakers have addressed the problem that we are supposed to be discussing and trying to solve. For example, do we agree—does the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) agree—that the problem we face is a deeply divided society, a division based on bigotry, prejudice and intolerance? From that central cancer of division flows all the problems that disfigure our little piece of earth. Do we agree that that is the problem that we are trying to solve? If so, there has been little reference to it. Do we further agree that if that is the problem—I suspect that most people studying our situation would agree that it is—the way to tackle it is for all those involved to commit themselves to break down the barriers that constitute that division?
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) said that the task of working together in Northern Ireland would not be easy. However, hon. Members from Northern Ireland should be prepared to address themselves to the question "Are we prepared to sit down together with the task of breaking down the barriers that disfigure and divide us?" Do we accept that, although the confrontation and division in Northern Ireland is right at the centre of the problem, there are other dimensions to it? There is the British dimension to the problem, which emerges in every speech. It goes without saying that there is an Irish dimension. If the problem is the division in Northern Ireland, we must face up to the problem in all its dimensions in order to solve it.
Therefore, the framework for the solution should be based on the framework of the problem. The framework of solution is the British-Irish framework because that framework addresses all the dimensions. Certain people may not like that solution. It is evident from the speeches of unionist Members today that they certainly do not like that solution. They are applying their own yardstick, which they are entitled to apply, and it is based on a traditional approach.
Unionism in the north of Ireland has never been political in the real sense of the word. Unionism is an oligarchy that has maintained itself on the basis of sectarian solidarity, which has given it power and strength. Whenever this House has moved to create any sort of reasonableness in Northern Ireland, unionists have

responded, as they have responded over the past 18 months, with threats of dire consequences—the Orange card.
The one great service that this House and this Government, supported by the leaders of all the major parties, have done for the people of Ireland has been to stand firm against those threats. By doing so they have made the most important step forward this century to deal with the problems of Ireland. Past British Governments have backed down in the face of those threats and have created a vicious circle—a vicious circle that confirmed leadership in the unionist community in the hands of those who were uncomprising and who did not wish to come to terms or accommodate in any way those with whom they differed. It was a vicious circle because it gave encouragement to those in the nationalist community who argued that only violence worked and only violence made British Governments pay attention.
That vicious circle of threats of violence and violence has paralysed Ireland for much of this century and has prevented movement forward. However, that state of affairs has been cut through by this Government's refusal to back down in the face of such threats. A new, fluid, political situation has been created. In that new situation there are opportunities if we are prepared to seize them.
Unionist politicians who have spoken today once again did so in terms of the preservation of the oligarchy. I did not hear from one mouth any suggestion that we live in a divided society, or any suggestion as to how we should treat that central problem of division or accommodate differences. They are entitled to wish to continue to live apart, but they are not entitled to ask everybody else to pay for it.
The challenge that they face is whether they are prepared to decide that we are going to live together. We have heard from them about the people of Northern Ireland and we have heard them say "Ulster says no". Who are they talking about? They are talking about themselves, not about the people of Ulster. They are talking not about the people of Northern Ireland but about the unionist people. They have the concept of maintaining differences and maintaining their own position. Although, as I have said, they are entitled to do that, they are not entitled to ask everybody else to pay the price. It is only when the people of the community decide that they are going to live together with the people with whom they share a piece of earth and sit down to discuss the terms of living together that we will start moving towards peace. Those terms cannot involve the domination of any one section of the people of Ireland by another. Those terms must involve agreement. That is where the Anglo-Irish Agreement has a great strength.
Article 1 of the agreement forced the extremes of all sides to face the harsh realities. It is the article that received the most criticism from the extremes, yet it is the article that faces the reality of the situation in Ireland. It makes the nationalistic-republican tradition face the reality that the people of Ireland are divided. One cannot unite the people of Ireland without the agreement of the people of the north and the people of the south any more than one can unite Cyprus without the agreement of the Greek and Turkish Cypriots. One cannot possibly unite the people of Ireland without the agreement of the Protestants of the north. The hon. Member for Antrim, North has often said that their strongest guarantee is not written in legislation


but is in their own numbers and their own geography, and I agree wholeheartedly with that. That article in the Anglo-Irish Agreement is a recognition of fact.
The second declaration in the agreement also challenges those whose rhetoric about the unity and independence of Ireland we have listened to for so long. It states that if a majority of people in the north of Ireland agree to the unity of Ireland, the British Government will facilitate it and agree to it. Therefore, that is saying essentially that unity in Ireland is a matter for the people of Ireland. It is a matter for those who want it to persuade those who do not. That is a challenge that can never be met or fulfilled by a gun. Those who attempt to persuade their fellow Irishmen to unite at the point of a gun and those who walk into a field where there is a farmer who has nothing but a spade and shoot him in the head because he is a UDR man are making no contribution to the unity of the Irish people. Those who murder a young Protestant electrician in my home town, a young man who lived up to the ideals of republicanism, of uniting Catholics and Protestants and who lived, worked, played and socialised with Catholics but whose only crime was that he fixed a light bulb in a police station occasionally, make no contribution to unity. If that is a contribution to bringing together the Irish people, God save the Irish people.
The British Government, in an international agreement, have made it clear that if the people of Ireland can agree among themselves as to how they are to be governed they will agree to it. That is a challenge. It has never been faced up to by those of the republican and nationalist tradition. It is a challenge of breaking down the barriers that have existed for centuries between Catholics and Protestants in our corner of that island.
We hear much rhetoric about self-determination and about the indefeasible right to sovereignty. I agree with the right of the people of Ireland to sovereignty and self-determination, but it has to be pointed out that the people of Ireland are divided about how to exercise that self-determination and sovereignty. If we are ever to exercise it as a common people, we can do so only by breaking down the barriers. That is the challenge that the Anglo-Irish Agreement throws out to those in Ireland who want to see the barriers breaking down.
Are we prepared to face up to that challenge? I believe, and my party has said, that the peaceful road to healing the divide in our society can be reached only in stages. We do not see instant answers to deep-seated problems. The first stage will be equality of treatment for all people. The second stage—the one we should move towards now—is that of breaking down the barriers.
My challenge to everybody who talks or lectures about the problem is, how does one break down the barriers between the two sections of our people? I ask my unionist fellow citizens and countrymen, "Do you agree that our fundamential task is to break down those barriers of distrust, division and prejudice between us?" From that cancer comes all of the things that disfigure our people.
If we agree that that is our task, the next question is, how do we do it? My party and I believe that the only way in which we can build trust among ourselves is by working together to administer that place. Through working together we will build the trust that has been missing over the years and diminish the distrust and prejudice. We should let relationships evolve out of that, evolving into

new relationships within Ireland and between Ireland and Britain. If anybody has another way of breaking down the barriers, I would like to hear it. We would certainly be open to other suggestions.
In the past week a document has been produced in unionist circles. There has been much reaction to the document. We must be careful about the status of the document. I say that in order to defer to those who produced it. The document is not a statement of unionist policy; it is a set of recommendations from a working party within two parties to two party leaders. Until we hear the response of those party leaders to those recommendations we do not know what the reaction of unionism is. We did not get that reaction today from the hon. Member for Antrim, North. Perhaps we will get it when the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) makes his speech.
On reading that document, I would say that it represents an honest and genuine debate being started by the authors within the unionist family. I should like to see that debate continue. I do not believe that people such as myself or my colleagues have any great contribution to make at this stage by reacting to the proposals because it is an internal discussion. However, I believe that the debate is long overdue. As I have already said, I would like to see it moving in the direction of deciding how we live together and how we accommodate differences, not about how we maintain our own position.
There are many welcome suggestions in the document. There is one suggestion about a unionist convention which looks rather like something we did ourselves a few years ago—a forum. If they adopt that suggestion, I would like to see the unionist community analysing the situation openly for the first time moving away from the laager and starting to consider how we live together. If they do that, my party would be willing to give them our view of the situation as we see it. If the discussions that they are hinting at take place, we will certainly be more than willing to take part in them.
We are approaching yet more anniversaries in the north of Ireland. It seems that we in Ireland have so much respect for our past that it often paralyses our attitude to the future. There has been plenty of evidence for that. As we are approaching the 300th anniversaries, probably the most important anniversaries for unionism—the siege of Derry in 1689 and the battle of the Boyne in 1690—we should reflect on the fact that the quarrels that those dates represent were much wider than the narrow sectarian quarrel to which they have now been reduced. Those quarrels affected the whole of Europe and they related to very important issues.
The quarrels that affected Europe then have long since been buried, forgotten and settled. New quarrels have arisen within Europe and they have also long since have been buried and settled. Could we not make it an objective that by the time we reach the 300th anniversaries we will at last bury our quarrel and take advantage of the present fluid position to do so?

Mr. Simon Hughes: This debate has now lasted for about three and three quarter hours. It is appropriate and right that we should have the opportunity to debate the constitutional relationships


between Northern Ireland and the rest of the country at the beginning of this new Session. The order that we are asked to vote on is about that future.
Anyone coming fresh to this debate will realise that there is a mass of emotion through which anyone with responsibility in Government must find a way. The Secretary of State and his colleagues, including his new Minister of State, should have the best wishes of all hon. Members as they try to carry out a task which is probably the most difficult faced by any Government Department. I was forced to reflect that as they and the new team in the Northern Ireland Office set about the job of trying to reconcile the opinions, history and emotions that have been represented here today, they can try to bring about the kind of reconciliation described by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) only with a conviction that people of good will primarily and unreservedly renounce violence as a contribution to that task. They will also know that they must work together to achieve a way forward.
The different traditions and communities must learn to live together if they are to share the same part of God's earth. We seek a leadership from the Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office and their officials and a leadership from those 17 hon. Members representing Northern Ireland in this Parliament in the attempt to bring the communities together.
The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea), who has just left the Chamber, set forth what was, on the face of it, a valid argument. He said that having had elected 13 out of 17 Northern Ireland Members, the unionist view should predominate. Of course, he left out the key underlying argument that the unionists' case is that they want to belong to the United Kingdom. If one argues a unionist case, one must accept a unionist solution that the Government of all the United Kingdom and the Parliament of all the United Kingdom—be we English, Welsh, Scots or Northern Irish representatives—have a right to make that decision.
We come to this debate about the continuation of this 13-year-old order in the light of the newer decision on the Anglo-Irish Agreement, endorsed by all the major parties as the best way forward. The Liberal party and the alliance have always said—and the Government have conceded—that this is probably not the ideal solution. However, it is the best way forward immediately available, because, as SDLP Members have said, the reality of Northern Ireland means that there is a British and an Irish dimension. That is inescapable. To pretend that the British and Irish Government and peoples do not have a shared interest is to escape history and reality.
Of course, the unionists received a majority of votes. None the less, they must accommodate those who did not vote for them. I pay tribute to the fact that the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) represents the fact that the SDLP made progress and won an additional seat. I congratulate him on that and welcome him to this place. The unionists must also accommodate the fact that we are all Members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom entrusted by history and law with the government of Northern Ireland. It is common ground that until by persuasion, agreement or negotiation there can be a change in the majority view of the people, clearly that responsibility must remain with this place.
The two maiden speeches today referred to previous House of Common personalities and then made different points. I want to join with the tributes made to Mr. J.

Enoch Powell. As Member of Parliament on the mainland representing Wolverhampton, South-West and then the Member for South Down, he clearly was one of the preeminent Members of the House of Commons since the war, whatever one's party or political view. That conclusion is inescapable. From my childhood, I remember Mr. Powell contributing to political debate with intellect, intelligence and often very clear analysis. We miss him in this House, but that does not mean that we wish to demean in any way the success of the present hon. Member for South Down who has replaced Mr. Powell.
Beneath this debate there are many signs of optimism. I acknowledge the way in which the Secretary of State, in a quiet and cautious speech at the beginning of the debate, showed that he was willing to start in the process of dialogue with those Unionist Members who have now resumed their places in this House. The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) made it clear that in the short term we must accept that the order must be approved because there is no other next step other than to continue to support the present base and to build on it.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), who is formally back in this place, has clearly recognised—as have his unionist colleagues—that they must begin to have a dialogue. The recommendation in the report to the two Unionist party leaders clearly states that it is no longer acceptable within unionist opinion for the leadership not to have some dialogue, without preconditions or prejudice as to where that will lead. If we do not talk, we will not find solutions.
I do not believe that more terrorism has resulted from the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Yes, statistics may show that and it could be argued that terrorism has increased. However, it does not follow that there must be more terrorism because of a political initiative here. It does not follow that there must be more deaths, murders or attacks. That requires the intervening choice of people to be violent and to be terrorists. Much depends on the reactions of the leadership of the parties in Northern Ireland.
I join the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) in hoping that we can press ahead with ways in which co-operation can reduce terrorism. I urge the Government of the Irish Republic to implement elements of the agreement that relate to extradition and ensure that we have the greatest commonality of law and practice to the advantage of the peace-loving citizens of both communities.
There was another optimistic sign in the debate. There was a wide consensus about the need to devolve more power and decision making. If we argue that we are withholding power from people in Northern Ireland, but we are not willing to do something for the time being to return power to the district councils and the Province, that is a fallacious argument. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), with whom I do not always agree, and the right hon. Member for Strangford made points about handing more powers back to district and regional councils. There is every reason to try to enhance the powers of the elected representatives within Northern Ireland. Many people would expect a Liberal to argue for that devolution of power, and we would say that it should apply equally to Scotland and Wales. It can certainly apply to Northern Ireland. It does not break the fabric of the agreement made between the British and Irish Governments.
I apologise on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), who has responsibility in the parliamentary Liberal party for Northern Ireland, for the fact that he cannot be here. He is having a minor operation on his mouth and the date of the operation was fixed a long time ago. On his behalf I make it clear that the Liberal party has supported the Anglo-Irish Agreement since it began. We have argued for rights for both traditions and supported devolution within the agreement to ensure that all constitutional parties have as much say as possible in the government of Northern Ireland.
We welcome the task force's report as a step in the right direction. I hope that Unionist party leaders will accept that report because, without their re-entry into the negotiations, it will be difficult to make progress. We welcome the fact that Unionist Members are again in the House of Commons to put their case and be heard. Parliament and the Government are able properly to take account of the unionists' fears, concerns and suspicions only if they put their case and are heard.
We welcome the task force's rejection of integration. The task force appears to think, although this is not heavily argued, that Northern Ireland might be able to go it alone. My colleagues and I do not accept that view. We do not think that it would be economically viable or politically acceptable. We often argue not just about Northern Ireland's constitution but about its social and economic life. The six counties should be able to be prosperous again.
There are signs of prosperity, but there should be more because the Province still has some of the highest pockets of unemployment in the United Kingdom. We need to ensure that ordinary people, whatever their denomination or belief, have the job, social and community security and dignity to which they are entitled, wherever they live.
Beneath some of the noise and controversy there are signs of hope. Some controversial remarks have been made. The maiden speech of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) was controversial. But he comes here with a job to do—to ask the Government questions as a Member of Parliament. Governments are accountable to the House. The tradition that people make insipid and non-controversial maiden speeches has nearly ended. In fact, since I have been a Member, I have heard few such speeches. The hon. Member for Brent, East comes here with a particular interest in Irish affairs, so his contribution should be welcomed and his record as a democrat and contributor to government acknowledged. I acknowledge that contribution. Like the hon. Gentleman, I hope that our removed government in London, where both our constituencies lie, is returned soon.
I hope that we all come here as friends of Ireland and Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster said that we should not speak unless we have been to Northern Ireland and know its people and problems. I have been there and indeed holidayed there, so I have shown that I am willing to commit myself to Northern Ireland other than as a politician. It is important that we work together positively and constructively in good will and listen as much as we pronounce.
I am forced to come to one other conclusion which underlies much of what is said. It is not a party political

point. History has separated, in view and politics, people in Northern Ireland more than in many parts of the world. The legacy of death and killing in recent years is evidence of that. There is a limit to what men and women can do to achieve political or other success. It is the duty of those who believe that they have a God and who invoke God and claim the Christian heritage of St. Patrick and the rest—to which the hon. Member for South Down referred—to ensure that God is given a chance to intervene. The efforts of men and women are often to put asunder what God probably would think better joined. We can be enabled to do good things but many are only second best, and I hope that we never believe that any of us have all the solutions or answers. This debate is evidence not only of that, but of the fact that there may now be political improvements because of a willingness by all sides to contribute and, I hope, a greater willingness to listen to the other person as well.

Mr. James Molyneaux: I do not suppose that the Standing Orders require one to congratulate those who do not respect convention, but I have no hesitation in offering my congratulations to the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) on the content of his speech. I am grateful to him for his tribute to his predecessor and my party colleague, Enoch Powell, to whom I shall convey his remarks and those of other right hon. and hon. Members.
We are indebted to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) for his revealing intervention during the speech of the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) when he seemed to repudiate Mr. Haughey's opinions with the assertion that those who work among nationalists in Northern Ireland are best able to judge their views. That was an unanswerable argument against the joint authority. How can Dublin Ministers possibly know better than the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh and his two SDLP colleagues?
The hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) used an interesting phrase when he said that one way, and possibly the most effective way, to break down barriers was to learn to work together to administer the Province. That seemed to be fairly close to one of the options that the Secretary of State has in mind, although I do not seek to put words into his mouth. I think that he did not entirely dismiss that idea, which surfaced at various times during the debate. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) referred to it and the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) came close to dealing with it.
I do not seek to score points because I think that the hon. Member for Foyle was genuine in his approach. If he is referring to working together in Northern Ireland at an initially modest administrative level without the involvement of any foreign Government, I do not think that there would be any great difficulty. The hon. Gentleman and members of his party sit on the Bench before me, the SDLP playing their part and performing a full role as an Opposition party in this sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom. I agree with the hon. Member for Foyle that there should not be any great difficulty in starting to think and talk about the possibility of a modest start in what the hon. Gentleman termed "administration at some level". But I emphasise "at some level", not within the oversight of the Anglo-Irish diktat.
The theme "An End to Drill" goes much wider than suggestions of some form of devolved government. The authors of the task force's report faithfully reported and reflected the opinions put to them by a wide range of parties, groups and individuals. In their defence, I must explain that the reference to independence as a possible option was made to record what had been put to them during consultations with groups. They would have been not quite accurate or truthful if they had omitted the reference to that option, because they were required to present a synopsis and consensus of what had been said to them during interviews over some eight weeks.
The need for an end to the drift is most urgent in terms of security. The Secretary of State conceded that point at the beginning of his address. I make no apology for returning again to this issue. For 17 years, the story has been one of drift without any coherent strategy. That is how it has looked to me, and to many citizens of Northern Ireland on both sides of the so-called divide. It is also the way that it looks to serving members and former members of the security forces—not just the indigenous forces in Northern Ireland. but the army personnel who come back to the larger island of Great Britain at the end of their tour, or perhaps when they retire. I hope that the drift that we have seen between periods of assassination and atrocity, and from one atrocity to the next, will end, and that we shall be able to dispose of such happenings once and for all.
At a public engagement last Saturday, I said:
I have to say quite bluntly that whatever the outcome of probing political discussions, or the result of any possible negotiations, all such efforts will be in vain as long as the gunman stalks our land.
I hope that the Secretary of State and his new Minister of State will redouble their efforts, and that they will assure the security forces at all levels that Ministers will support them in determined efforts to eradicate terrorism in all its forms, and from whatever source it may come.
The theme "An End to Drift" also applies to the constitutional and political sphere. The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) inadvertently implied that the House of Commons had saddled itself with direct rule almost by an act of God. The truth is that the Almighty had some assistance from the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath); indeed, the right hon. Gentleman might put it the other way round. When he was Prime Minister, the right hon. Gentleman ought not to have acted as he did. He ought not to have removed a structure which he conceded was working efficiently without making any preparation and having no idea in his head about what he would put in its place.
By a process of trial and error lasting for some two years, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup and the Government whom he led experimented with various temporary devices. In February 1974, it was left to the incoming Labour Government and the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) to sort out the mess.
Good citizens often make the mistake of assuming that when a member of the Government—especially a member of the Cabinet—speaks for the Government, he is speaking for a solidly united Government under the doctrine of collective responsibility. But when we read the memoirs and papers released after 30 years—in some cases nowadays we do not have to wait that long, because

we read some very interesting accounts of what life was like within a Cabinet—our illusions are somewhat rudely shattered. When we are told that a Government is set on an irreversible course, and that in no circumstances will there be any change or even slight modification of that course, we are entitled to feel just a little cynical.
In my brief contribution, however, I shall try to resist the temptation to be cynical, because, like the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), I want to be constructive. I believe, as he does, that we need an end to drift. In the past, we have supplied evidence of willingness to participate in forward political movement; indeed, we have been pioneers in that direction. Some time ago, we thought that it would be useful for those who might be interested to draw together all the various initiatives that we have brought forward inside the covers of one booklet entitled "Unionism—a Policy for all the People". If copies are not available in the Vote Office, they are available in my office.
That booklet provides a valuable record of the various submissions that we have put to the Government from time to time, some of them in advance of the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. For example, the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) regarding relations with the Irish Republic is dealt with on page 20 in the context of the paper that the hon. Member for Antrim, North and I handed to the Prime Minister at Downing street on 25 August 1985.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North and I, with our colleagues, have not changed our views and attitudes in the interval. We shall study carefully the suggestions put forward in outline by the Secretary of State, but that study will be on the clear understanding—which I think is now accepted by most hon. Members—that any formula or basis for a solution must be without prejudice, in the sense that that term would be used in legal circles. However, like other right hon. and hon. Members, I must caution against raising false hopes and expectations, and that word of caution is particularly necessary when directed towards the news industry.
For some strange reason, those in the commanding heights of the news industry seem to feel that it is quite all right to encourage their editorial and leader writers to exhort politicians and others in Northern Ireland to be reasonable and constructive and to keep their heads, and not to get carried away by emotion. At the same time, they seem to feel that there is nothing inconsistent in dispatching their journalists all round the United Kingdom to engage in what can only be called pot-stirring. That is simply not good enough. Knowing many of the people in that profession as I do, I think that they will take note of what so many of us have said, if they genuinely want to see progress made. But they must resist the temptation to speak to someone on one side of the political divide, and then immediately ring up someone else, give a distorted account of what was said and invite an instant comment.

Mr. Mallon: I shall not enter into any debate of the modus operandi of the journalistic profession. However, as a Member of the House, and a member of one of the parties directly involved in trying to achieve a resolution of the problems in the north of Ireland, I should be interested to know the right hon. Gentleman's reaction to the report of the task force—as interested as I should still be to know the reaction of the leader of the


Democratic Unionist party, the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). I think that most people in the north of Ireland who are concerned about the future would share that interest.

Mr. Molyneaux: I can put the hon. Gentleman out of his misery in less than a minute. However, let me finish the point that I was making.
If there is to be any prospect of success in our endeavours—by which I mean feeling our way forward, this time cautiously; not engaging in any high-wire acts, but building solidly on constructive approaches and workable and realistic suggestions—there must be a degree of confidentiality. When public representatives are placed in positions of responsibility—and many of us are bearing a burden that we never requested—they must be guided by a degree of consideration and caution. They must also be granted a degree of authority to act on their own judgment, because presumably that is why we are all elected in the first place. We must always remember that if we are to carry with us our electorate and those to whom we are responsible, we must retain our integrity and never knowingly betray the trust reposed in us.
Let me now answer the question posed by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh and the leader of his party, the hon. Member for Foyle. What I have just said relates to the judgment that the hon. Member for Antrim, North and I must exercise as we sympathetically evaluate the suggestions in the report "An End to Drift". We must then judge the timing, order and priority that we attach to the various suggestions contained in the report of our three colleagues to whom I have publicly paid tribute, and I repeat that tribute now.

8 pm

Mr. Stuart Bell: At the outset let me say that it is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux). Like the rest of us, he had to fight a general election, win it and return here. He is also returned here as leader of his party and therefore shows the dedication that he feels to his cause and the cause of the people whom he wishes to represent.
One of the things that I learnt when I first entered the House—I was reminded of it by the right hon. Gentleman—is not to be cynical. I remember Mr. Leo Abse, who is no longer with us, telling me that I was far too young to be cynical after only a year in the House of Commons. He was probably right to say that.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley also referred to assassination and atrocity. That was also referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) in his maiden speech and by the Secretary of State who has been here throughout the debate since 4 o'clock. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on that and appreciate his presence and attention. The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the violence in Northern Ireland, as did my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer).
It is appropriate at this time to say—as we have said before—that all of us in the House abhor violence and terrorism. We do not tolerate it, will have no truck with it and will not give it any support from whichever quarter it comes. That statement cannot be repeated too often in the House of Commons.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley said that independence was not an option. We have gone through a series of options since the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed. We have seen the response to that agreement from the unionist community. As time has passed and while opposition to the agreement remains firm—I accept that it is an opposition from people in Northern Ireland as well as from politicians—nevertheless there is movement in the sense that the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley and the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) are back in the House of Commons and taking part in our debates. The electricity and rhetoric are back in the air —[Interruption.]
The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea), who made a passionate speech earlier, shakes his head as if to disagree. We enjoyed his speech and listened to it with great care. I feel sorry for the Hansard reporter who had to write it down at great speed, but the rest of us enjoyed it and we welcome the hon. Gentleman back. It is good to see the rhetoric and electricity again flowing from one side of the House to the other on the important subject of Northern Ireland and its future. Therefore, I detect—perhaps the Secretary of State does as well—a slight movement in the air that will get us to talks with the Government without prejudice or pre-conditions so that little by little we can seek to accommodate those in Northern Ireland who feel disaffected following the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
It is not always a pleasure to refer to maiden speeches. It is not a common event. I remember making my maiden speech in 1983 when I was heartily congratulated and told that it was the greatest and best maiden speech that anyone had ever heard. Two days later I followed another hon. Member who was making his maiden speech, and dutifully told him that he had made the best, most lucid and most coherent speech that anyone had ever made and that I looked forward very much to listening to him in the future. We therefore fall into the habit of congratulating other hon. Members, and it is not necessarily a bad habit. Members of the House of Commons are not the easiest audience in the world. I describe it as "living theatre". One never knows from day to day or minute to minute how things will go or what questions one will be asked. It is an unnerving experience.
I therefore congratulate genuinely, sincerely and seriously the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady). In his maiden speech the hon. Gentleman combined a reference to his constituency and predecessor with a carefully thought out analysis of some of the problems in Northern Ireland. He said that if those problems could have been solved, they would have been solved some time ago, and that it was not for this generation to solve problems that had existed for many generations. The question of identity and belonging was also an important part of the hon. Gentleman's speech. He made some cogent points that we should all take on board and remember.
Many hon. Members have greatly regretted the defeat of the former right hon. Member, Mr. Enoch Powell. I remember that on one of the first occasions when I spoke from the Opposition Dispatch Box I had the imprudence to speak before Mr. Powell. When he followed me, he said, "I will give the hon. Member for Middlesbrough B-minus for that speech." I learnt from that experience that it was not prudent to speak before Mr. Powell, and that it was preferable to speak after him. I could then congratulate


him on his logic, the way that he put his arguments and the conclusions that he reached. However, Labour Members were never appreciative of Mr. Powell's statements in the late 1960s on the "rivers of blood". We never thought that that was a positive speech to be made by someone who was a member of the shadow Cabinet at the time.
I am reminded of some lines from "The Burial of Sir John Moore at Corunna" when I think of Mr. Enoch Powell:
We carved not a line, and we raised not a stone—But we left him alone with his glory.
Tonight we have spoken a great deal in his honour, and therefore Mr. Powell has not been entirely left alone with his glory. I appreciated the statements of the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) who gave the best homily to the former right hon. Gentleman, Mr. Enoch Powell.
I also wish to refer to the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East. He spoke with passion as well as with coherence in his first intervention. He was articulate in his comments. He did not respect the long gone convention that one makes a non-controversial maiden speech. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) was quite right, because the days when an hon. Member made a non-controversial maiden speech are long gone.
My hon. Friend spoke for his constituents when he said that they suffered under the Prevention of Terrorism Act as it now stands. It was an interesting maiden speech—possibly a unique one—in which reference was made to a series of allegations that have been made many times before. On 10 March 1987, my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) made a series of points on the same subject in column 249 of Hansard. A refutation of those allegations was made at the time and later on 9 April 1987 by the former Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, who is no longer there.
This may be an appropriate moment to welcome the new Minister of State to his first Northern Irish debate. It is an exciting occasion. However long one may have been in the House, one learns that Northern Irish debates add to one's comprehension of parliamentary procedure. On this occasion I applaud the diligence and wisdom of Mr. Deputy Speaker in allowing the debate to wander somewhat wider than the scope of the order before us.
On 9 April 1987, the former Minister of State, the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott), said:
Not a shred of evidence has ever been advanced to suggest that the allegations of Holroyd and Wallace have any foundation whatsoever. I cannot see how they can have any effect on the Anglo-Irish Agreement."—[Official Report, 9 April 1987; Vol. 114, c. 4471.]
Since then The Observer has had work carried out to test the authenticity of the documents that Mr. Colin Wallace has been circulating for some time. All the political parties, and even the Prime Minister, have received copies of those documents. Some of the documents, allegedly written in the early 1970s, have been analysed by a firm called Hehner and Cox Ltd, analytical and consulting chemists. After analysing them that company said:
the balance of probability favours the authentic origin of the writings attributed to 1974 or earlier.
I do not wish to follow the line of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East, but I wish to take up a point made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey who said that the Government were

accountable to the House of Commons. It is incumbent upon a Government to listen to hon. Members who make specific allegations on the Floor of the House. I shall happily give the Secretary of State or the Minister of State the letter that I have received and invite them to look at it closely.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) referred to equal citizenship. In one of our earlier debates the Secretary of State said that the nature of the governance of Northern Ireland does not affect the citizenship of a subject of Northern Ireland. The fact that there is a different form of governance does not mean that they are not equal citizens with the rest of us in the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State took up that point last year and I confirm it.
The Secretary of State referred again to our methods of conducting Northern Ireland business. We have raised this matter on many occasions. On 4 December 1986—my remarks will be found in column 577 of Hansard—I put forward a series of proposals for the governance of Northern Ireland and for a legislative framework. I suggested that we should abandon the system of Orders in Council. Later tonight we shall debate a very important Order in Council dealing with the electricity industry, which will have to be dealt with in 90 minutes. Earlier, there was talk of a Select Committee on Northern Ireland. There has been talk of a Standing Committee and, of course, there is already a Northern Ireland Committee. We keep talking about modifying our procedures for dealing with Northern Ireland business. I suggest that, as we now have a new Government, it is high time that we got on with it. I hope that if there are to be talks through the usual channels about reforming the way in which we conduct Northern Ireland business, those talks should take place very quickly.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey referred to devolution. As I said in response to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley, we have considered the concepts of independence, equal citizenship, regional councils, referred to earlier, and devolution. However, the fact is that the people and parties of Northern Ireland must come together with a form of government that is satisfactory to them. We must return to a state of affairs in which they are in charge of their own affairs, in which the two communities respect each other's identity and in which they feel at home with a local or regional government that responds to their needs. That being so, we would certainly support the proposition of devolved government. The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster denounced the Opposition and said that we were never serious about devolution. If he refers to Hansard, he will find that on many occasions over the past two years we have said that devolution is a way forward for the people of Northern Ireland. Indeed, I have sometimes been criticised by members of my own party for saying that there should be a devolved government in Northern Ireland that respects both nationalist and unionist traditions and seeks a proper balance between the two.
The Opposition do not intend to divide the House on the order. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who has been in his present job for about three years, gave the impression that he had been here for 13 years and that he had been present every time that the House has discussed this order. To my knowledge, this is only his third time. We fully accept that there has to be direct rule for Northern Ireland. We cannot return to the system that


existed before 1972. Furthermore, as we shall see when we discuss the Appropriation order, in the main, direct rule is not necessarily such a burden to the people of Northern Ireland.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): I start by thanking the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) and his hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) for welcoming us back to the Dispatch Box—a welcome to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in particular. I shall exercise caution in welcoming them back to the Opposition Dispatch Box; I know that certain dispositions will be taking place in the near future and I do not want to make their lives more difficult than they may be anyway.
I congratulate the new hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and welcome him to the House. His maiden speech was characterised by the eloquence, insight and genuine concern for and empathy with his constituents, coupled with an obvious determination to represent them properly in this place. He spoke about a climate of hope, which requires a sense of belonging and a recognition of legitimate aspirations. He will have won many friends by his acceptance that that must be true for both communities in Northern Ireland. We look forward to hearing more of his contributions.
I should like to add my name to those who have asked the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) to convey their remarks to Enoch Powell about the sense of loss and deprivation that the House suffers as a result of his absence. As others have said, that in no way detracts from the significance of the new hon. Member's victory or from the contributions that he will make.
On the other maiden speech made this evening, I am in something of a difficulty, because I do not share the views expressed by the hon. Members for Middlesbrough or for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). This House runs on a combination of rules and conventions. When the conventions are broken, it makes life difficult for the House and it makes it difficult to respond to maiden speakers. I note that another convention has been broken this evening by the fact that the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) is not in his place for the wind up. He made a passing reference to Reg Freeson, his predecessor, who was a Minister in a former Labour Government and whom I got to know as a member of the——

Rev. Ian Paisley: Surely, the hon. Gentleman should be very, very careful in making remarks about hon. Members being absent. The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) has only just come into the Chamber. I was not present after my maiden speech, as I had been called out. Perhaps new hon. Members do not understand the ways of this House, and the Minister should not be too cruel to someone who is not present. Perhaps the Minister will accept those remarks from me, as he will understand that I have no connection whatever with the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone).

Mr. Mawhinney: I always listen carefully to the remarks of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). However I must return to my serious point. The

conventions of this House are not an irrelevance; they are a convenience to promote the proper relationship that must exist in a democratic Parliament. The speech of the hon. Member for Brent, East caused offence—particularly, I suspect, to Conservative Members. Many will feel that he abused the privilege accorded to a maiden speaker and I must tell him, in his absence, that he will not be treated so kindly again, either by the House or by a Minister at this Dispatch Box. I shall try not to stray from the conventions of this House governing a response to a maiden speech.
I reject his outrageous allegations about my right hon. Friend the Prime Minster. I reject his conspiracy theories and remind him that the allegations made by Messrs Wallace and Holroyd over the years about the conduct of the security forces in Northern Ireland have been fully and carefully investigated since they left the Province in 1979. No evidence has been discovered to substantiate any of their allegations. I reject the hon. Gentleman's allegations about the security forces and his equivocation will be rejected by most hon. Members. I could not help but contrast the hon. Gentleman's maiden speech with that of the hon. Member for South Down—a constitutional nationalist of Northern Ireland, representing the people of Northern Ireland in strong opposition both to the Sinn Fein and PIRA.
The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West encouraged us to consult the people of Northern Ireland more publicly. That is what we seek to do, because we understand that that is important in maintaining the credibility of direct rule. However, the main thrust of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument concerned the legislative procedures of the House. He was backed in his remarks by the right hon. Members for Lagan Valley and for Strangford (Mr. Taylor), the hon. Members for Antrim, North and for Middlesbrough and by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow).
I remind the House of what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his speech:
The House may understand that we are willing to consider changes in arrangements to determine whether it is possible to agree ways of improving the difficulties that we perceive.
In saying that, he was reflecting the view of the Government as put forward earlier by the Prime Minister when she said:
The Government are certainly willing to look at ways in which Northern Ireland business is handled in the House to see whether there are ways in which this could be improved, and we remain ready to consider any constructive suggestion.
We are conscious of the difficulties with the current arrangements for dealing with Northern Ireland legislation, and it is clearly an issue that must be faced if direct rule is to continue. No doubt it will form part of the discussions that may develop.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister will appreciate that the major point—I associate myself with it—is that the different arrangement sought is something which allows hon. Members from Northern Ireland and elsewhere to amend Government proposals. That is the key issue on which there must be some progress and which we expect the Minister and his colleagues to deliver.

Dr. Mawhinney: I understand that that is the point which the hon. Gentleman wishes to make, and I am sure that it is an issue that will be considered if such discussions develop.
As always, I listened to the hon. Member for Antrim, North. I welcomed his promise to study carefully the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his acceptance of the tone in which my right hon. Friend made his speech. In turn, I welcome his response, which we will also read carefully, and noted the clear distinction which he drew between discussions and negotiation.
I also welcomed the constructive tone and comments of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley. We will study them carefully. It was helpful of him to clarify the references to independence in the task force report. I assure him that we will and do wholeheartedly support the security forces as they carry out their legitimate duties on behalf of us all, and we try to ensure that they know of that wholehearted support.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne raised a matter about which he feels deeply and which he has mentioned before: the constitutional difference which he perceives that the Anglo-Irish Agreement has made. I do not wish to tread over ground which has been trodden on before in our debates. But, recognising the strength and the genuineness of his feeling, I would like him to focus on that part of the agreement which makes it clear that decisions by Her Majesty's Government in Northern Ireland are made solely by Her Majesty's Ministers. It is important that he should add that to his consideration.
In no sense have Her Majesty's Government made the Irish Government responsible for the minority community in Northern Ireland, which I believe was the point my hon. Friend wanted us to take into account. The Government are wholly and rightly committed to maintaining the status of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom so long as the majority of its people wish, and I see no prospect of the majority of people changing their minds. There is no consent for change. But the communities live together side by side and their futures are inextricably linked. As has been made clear, there are no ingenious new arrangements which would allow separate futures for the two communities in Northern Ireland, so what progress is made must be acceptable to both.
I welcome the commitment of my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) to the importance of developing and maintaining good relations with the Irish Republic. I say that knowing better than some in the House of my hon. Friend's deep knowledge of the history and affairs of Ireland. When he said that, he was obviously speaking for many hon. Members on both sides of the House.
In a direct rule debate—this is the 13th—we must concentrate our minds on the political framework in Northern Ireland. On such an occasion, it is right to couple with our appreciation for the work of the security forces in the Province a word of appreciation for all the public servants in Northern Ireland, in the Northern Ireland Civil Service and in the Northern Ireland Office, who work hard and conscientiously to make direct rule as even-handed, effective and fair as possible under the guidance of Ministers. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will echo my appreciation of them as well as of the others who serve us in the Province.
This has been a constructive and instructive debate which was greatly enhanced by the Ulster accents that we

heard. A strength of the House is that it enables genuine disagreement, passionately felt, to be expressed in a framework of rational debate. It would be foolish not to acknowledge the strength of feeling aroused by some of the subjects discussed today, and eloquently conveyed by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea), but it would be equally foolish not to recognise that rational debate and discussion is needed if we are to make progress. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, a dialogue must start, involving all the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland. Such a dialogue would enable us to take forward the exchange of views that has been started in the debate.
The hon. Member for Foyle spoke about the need to break down the barriers of division and to start building a new future. I welcome his commitment. He said that if discussions took place, the SDLP would be more than willing to take part. The Government want talks about arrangements for the government and administration of Northern Ireland which are widely acceptable across the community. We believe that movement towards devolution might be the best way of achieving this. If a settlement were agreed among the parties, we would have to consider what it meant to the work of the intergovernmental conference. I cannot usefully say more about that at this stage.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley that difficult issues should not be rushed. But it is important to start talking about them. That is why I shall not delve too deeply into some of the issues raised in the debate or comment at length on some of the proposals that have been mentioned. We are prepared to talk to the parties without prejudice.
The hon. Member for Foyle pointed out the unarguable fact that division exists in Northern Ireland. But it may be helpful if we draw from this debate some broad areas of agreement among the Government and all the Northern Ireland constitutional parties. First, we all reject violence as a solution to the Province's problems. None of us believes that the gun and the bomb can solve the problems of Northern Ireland. We stand together in condemning terrorism and the use of violence. Right hon. and hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies and whose constituents are killed and maimed and have their property destroyed need no reminding of that. But it is equally important that right hon. and hon. Members from Great Britain know that, whatever disagreements there may be among the responsible political parties in Northern Ireland or with the Government, we all unite in our condemnation of violence and of those who support it.
Secondly, there is general agreement on the importance of gaining the consent of the people of Northern Ireland in determining the future status of the Province. The Government have made it clear that Northern Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom for as long as its people wish. There is no room for doubt on that score or for uncertainty about the future. If a change of status was favoured—as I said, I see no sign of it—it is accepted by the constitutional parties, and was helpfully reaffirmed this evening by the hon. Member for Foyle, that it can be achieved only by consent.
Thirdly, we all agree in our different ways that direct rule is an unsatisfactory basis for the future government of Northern Ireland. We want to see a change. Some of us have argued that Northern Ireland should be completely


integrated with the rest of the United Kingdom. I do not believe that what is called integration would best serve the interests of the people of Northern Ireland, not least because it would close the door to a devolved form of government. I believe also that there is no evidence that integration could achieve widespread acceptance. For that reason alone, I cannot regard it as the way forward.
The right hon. Member for Strangford rejected the idea of independence as a future route for political progress in the Province. The Government agree. However, we believe that a form of devolved government could achieve widespread acceptance. It is welcome to note that there is general support for that proposition. Any devolved government would need to he one in which both communities could have confidence and in which both would feel able to participate. Again, few would disagree with that. I welcome support for that idea given by both the speakers from the Opposition Front Bench and also by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey. We welcome him to the debate and hope that, when the mouth of his friend the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) is repaired, he will continue to attend and contribute to Northern Ireland debates.
The Government are willing to listen to any ideas which have a prospect of commanding wide support across the community in Northern Ireland. The report of the task force, much discussed this afternoon, must have improved the prospects of starting a dialogue, and we welcome it in that light. No one expects progress to be achieved overnight, but there may now be scope for discussions to start which could lead over time to agreement.
At the beginning of my speech I referred to the fact that we had listened to maiden speeches this evening. I was reminded earlier this week that it was in a similar debate on 2 July 1979 that I made my maiden speech. I believe that I have attended every direct rule debate subsequently, and I have spoken in a number of them from a different location in the Chamber. I spoke at that time about the tensions that existed in and between the communities in Northern Ireland, and I said, in an echo of what the hon. Member for Antrim, North said, that I did not wish the rhetoric of the Province to be the same in the lifetime of my children as it had been in my lifetime.
The important point, as my right hon. Friend said—and I make no apology for repeating it—is that there should be talks about the future. The difficulties that face us in Northern Ireland can only be resolved by consultation and discussion, and we must now find ways of talking to one another. We need a dialogue. The Government will be ready to play their role, as the parties that represent the people of Northern Ireland wish.
I hope that the debate has brought forward the day when dialogue can start. I believe that it has. Her Majesty's Government welcome that, and, I believe, so do the majority of people in Northern Ireland. I commend the order to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 227, Noes 11.

Division No. 9]
[8.33 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony


Alexander, Richard
Beith, A. J.


Ashdown, Paddy
Bellingham, Henry


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)





Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Hind, Kenneth


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Holt, Richard


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hordern, Sir Peter


Bowis, John
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Brazier, Julian
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Howells, Geraint


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Buck, Sir Antony
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Burt, Alistair
Hunter, Andrew


Butler, Chris
Irvine, Michael


Butterfill, John
Irving, Charles


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Jack, Michael


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Janman, Timothy


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Chapman, Sydney
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Chope, Christopher
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Colvin, Michael
Key, Robert


Conway, Derek
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Cope, John
Kirkhope, Timothy


Cormack, Patrick
Knapman, Roger


Cran, James
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Critchley, Julian
Knox, David


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Lang, Ian


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Lawrence, Ivan


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Day, Stephen
Lightbown, David


Devlin, Tim
Lilley, Peter


Dorrell, Stephen
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Dover, Den
Lord, Michael


Dunn, Bob
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Durant, Tony
McCrindle, Robert


Eggar, Tim
MacGregor, John


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Evennett, David
Maclean, David


Fallon, Michael
McLoughlin, Patrick


Farr, Sir John
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Favell, Tony
Major, Rt Hon John


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Malins, Humfrey


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Mans, Keith


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Marland, Paul


Fookes, Miss Janet
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Forth, Eric
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Fox, Sir Marcus
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Franks, Cecil
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Freeman, Roger
Miller, Hal


French, Douglas
Mills, Iain


Gale, Roger
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Gill, Christopher
Morrison, Hon P (Chester)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Moss, Malcolm


Gorst, John
Moynihan, Hon C.


Gow, Ian
Mudd, David


Gower, Sir Raymond
Neale, Gerrard


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Needham, Richard


Greenway, John (Rydale)
Nelson, Anthony


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Neubert, Michael


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Nicholls, Patrick


Grist, Ian
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Ground, Patrick
Oppenheim, Phillip


Grylls, Michael
Page, Richard


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Paice, James


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Pawsey, James


Hanley, Jeremy
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Harris, David
Porter, David (Waveney)


Haselhurst, Alan
Portillo, Michael


Hawkins, Christopher
Powell, William (Corby)


Hayes, Jerry
Price, Sir David


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Raffan, Keith


Hayward, Robert
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Redwood, John


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Rhodes James, Robert


Hill, James
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon






Riddick, Graham
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Thorne, Neil


Roe, Mrs Marion
Thornton, Malcolm


Rowe, Andrew
Thurnham, Peter


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Tracey, Richard


Ryder, Richard
Tredinnick, David


Sackville, Hon Tom
Trotter, Neville


Shaw, David (Dover)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Viggers, Peter


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Walden, George


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wallace, James


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Waller, Gary


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Watts, John


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wells, Bowen


Speed, Keith
Whitney, Ray


Speller, Tony
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)
Wilkinson, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wilshire, David


Stanbrook, Ivor
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stanley, Rt Hon John
Winterton, Nicholas


Steen, Anthony
Wood, Timothy


Stern, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Stevens, Lewis
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Stradling Thomas, Sir John



Summerson, Hugo
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Mr. Peter Lloyd and


Temple-Morris, Peter
Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd.


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)





NOES


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Kilfedder, James
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


McCusker, Harold
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Maginnis, Ken



Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Tellers for the Noes:


Paisley, Rev Ian
Rev. William McCrea and


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Mr. William Ross.


Skinner, Dennis

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period of Extension) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 30th April, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

Northern Ireland (Appropriation)

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Stanley): I beg to move,
That the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 7th May, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): It may be helpful if I make it clear that the debate on the order may cover all matters for which Northern Ireland Departments, as distinct from the Northern Ireland Office, are responsible. Police and security are the principal excluded subjects.

Mr. Stanley: The order is being made under paragraph 1 of schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974. The previous debate tonight added materially to my crash education on Northern Ireland matters, and we now turn from the weighty constitutional matters that we have been considering to the perhaps more mundane matters of public expenditure in the Province. I think, however, that the House will agree that they are no less significant.
Before dealing with the main points in these Estimates, I should like to say how much I look forward to serving all the people in Northern Ireland. As the House knows, my previous duties in the Ministry of Defence brought me into close contact with Northern Ireland affairs. I much look forward to getting to know the Province better still, and to trying to assist with its pressing security, political and economic needs.
The Province has many serious problems, some of which will be mentioned later. However, the sums of money sought through these Estimates totalling nearly £3·5 billion represent the clearest possible evidence of the Government's continued commitment to Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom.
The House will be aware that expenditure in Northern Ireland by the Ministry of Defence, the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Northern Ireland Office is borne on United Kingdom Supply Estimates. The draft order before the House relates exclusively to proposed expenditure by Northern Ireland Departments and associated public bodies, and excludes, for example, expenditure on police and security.
On 24 February the House approved a total of £1,483 million as a Vote on account. Today I seek the balance of £1,945 million, making a total Estimate for 1987–88 of £3,428 million, an increase of some £220 million over last year's Main Estimates. The Estimates volume which gives full details of projected expenditure is available in the Vote Office.
The order also appropriates some £115,000 to cover excess expenditure in the 1985–86 financial year by the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland. This excess has been examined by the Public Accounts Committee, which has raised no objection to it being voted. Details of the excess expenditure are set out in the Statement of Excess paper which is also in the Vote Office.
I should like to start by saying a few words about the general economic position in the Province. It is encouraging that the Province's industries have been showing some signs of recovery. Between 1982 and 1986 manufacturing output has grown by a modest 6 per cent. At the same time, helped by some special factors, the latest quarterly output figure for the construction industry is no


less than 31 per cent. higher than it was at the same time last year. Clear evidence that Northern Ireland industry is rising to the challenge of the competitiveness of the 1980s is also shown by the fact that since 1979 output per head in manufacturing industry has risen by 30 per cent., a very creditable achievement. It is above all rising productivity that will enable the Province's manufacturing companies to compete successfully in the international market place and provide long-term employment security for the people of Northern Ireland.
As far as unemployment is concerned, the current level of 18·4 per cent., compared to 10·8 per cent. in the United Kingdom as a whole, remains unacceptably high. However, it is encouraging that there has been some fall in the underlying numbers of those unemployed during 1987. Seasonally adjusted unemployment has fallen by an average of 200 per month over the past six months, compared with an increase of 300 per month in the previous six months. However, the most recent two months—that is, April and May—showed slight increases in the underlying numbers unemployed, although it would be too early to conclude that this marks a reversal of our otherwise favourable trend this year.
Turning to the Estimates in detail, I will start with those covering the provision for agriculture, forestry and fisheries. The Department of Agriculture Vote 1 provides for expenditure in Northern Ireland on measures of national agriculture and fisheries support which apply throughout the United Kingdom. This expenditure of about £42 million was formerly voted as part of the Supply Estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
With effect from 1 April this year, accounting responsibility for this expenditure was transferred to the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland under the Agriculture and Fisheries (Financial Assistance) (Northern Ireland) Order 1987. This transfer of responsibility does not affect the level of public expenditure on the various measures. The largest element within this Vote, accounting for about £30 million, is for structural improvements to agriculture by way of various capital and other grants. About £12 million is for support for agriculture in special areas through, for instance, headage payments on hill cattle and sheep.
The Department of Agriculture's Vote 2 seeks total provision of about £81 million, of which £35 million is for agricultural, scientific and veterinary services. The balance is made up of three elements—£10 million for various agricultural support measures, £23 million mainly for drainage and forest services, and £12 million for administrative services, including accommodation.
Turning to the Department of Economic Development, Votes 1 and 2 provide for the activities of the Industrial Development Board. In Vote 1, for industrial support and regeneration, the main provision sought is for about £12 million for the development board's factory building and estate development work. Good industrial infrastructure is essential when trying to capture the attention and win the confidence of inward investment companies which the Province is most anxious to attract.
A further £4 million has been earmarked for public relations and advertising campaigns to promote Northern Ireland as a good investment location.
In Vote 2 over £78 million is being provided for selective assistance to industry, including support for marketing and for research and development. The aim of this assistance is to increase investment and employment opportunities in the Province. I am glad to say that in the 1986–87 financial year the Industrial Development Board concluded agreements involving nearly 4,200 new jobs and £311 million of new investment in Northern Ireland. These figures are up 44 per cent. as far as jobs are concerned and are up 56 per cent. as far as investment is concerned over those for 1985–86. That is encouraging.
In the Department of Economic Development's Vote 3, the Estimates total about £93 million, of which £42·6 million is to provide assistance to Harland and Wolff. These funds will be used to support the company's trading operations, excluding the AOR contract, and also to meet expenditure on redundancies, on Harland and Wolff enterprises and on consultancy fees. Of the balance, £18·2 million is for standard capital grants, £7·6 million is for Shorts, and £21·2 million is for the support of small firms by the Local Enterprise Development Unit. The unit has achieved consistently encouraging results in job promotion, with over 4,000 additional jobs achieved last year alone. That is a further very creditable performance by the agency, which has done excellent work in supporting employment in small businesses since it was formed in 1971.
In the Department of Economic Development Vote 5, a total of £108·4 million is sought for various employment measures such as the youth training programme, the action for community employment scheme and the enterprise allowance scheme.
As far as the youth training programme is concerned, every young person leaving school is now guaranteed a training place up to the age of 18, so that no one under the age of 18 need now be on the unemployment register.
The action for community employment scheme has shown itself to be a valuable means of offering temporary employment to the long-term unemployed, and will provide about 6,200 jobs in this financial year.
I am also glad to say that there has been a continuing demand for places on the enterprise allowance scheme which encourages the unemployed to set up their own businesses. Since the scheme was introduced in August 1983, almost 6,000 previously unemployed people have established their own firms. In the current year, the £3·9 million sought will enable the number of available places to be increased by some 10 per cent. to 2,450.
Turning to the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment, a provision of £136·4 million is being sought for roads, transport and ports under Vote I. Most of that money—£109 million—will be spent on roads. Although priority is being given to maintaining the existing roads network, the Government are maintaining investment in new works at approximately £18 million.
The Department of the Environment's Vote 2 is for housing. In his statement of 12 December 1986, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear that housing investment was a high priority in the Province. Accordingly, this year's allocation to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, together with rental income and capital receipts, will be sufficient to finance the complete expenditure plans for 1987–88 that were proposed by the executive in its 1986 housing strategy review. This


allocation totals £502 million. In addition, there will be £41 million for Northern Ireland housing associations, which is broadly in line with the level of spending last year.
This year's total housing expenditure of over £0·5 billion will enable the current level of shared ownership purchases to be maintained in the private sector. Within the Housing Executive it will include a programme of 1,600 starts for rent, the improvement of more than 8,000 dwellings and the meeting of about 400,000 repair requests. It will also allow about 12,000 home owners to receive improvement and repair grants, thus continuing the impressive progress that the Government have made in improving the condition of the housing stock in the Province.
The education Estimates seek a total provision of £743 million for Department of Education services. I am glad to say that at the Northern Ireland negotiating committee on 18 May agreement was reached on pay and conditions of service for teachers in the Province. Total recurrent expenditure on schools in Votes 1 and 4 accounts for over half the total provision in the education Estimates. The recurrent grant of £231·5 million to area boards in Vote 4, out of which are met the running costs of controlled and maintained schools, represents an increase of almost 5 per cent. above last year's initial allocation to boards.
These Estimates were drawn up on the basis that overall teacher numbers in primary and secondary schools will be increased by 150 posts for the 1987–88 school year over and above the numbers actually required simply to maintain the existing pupil-teacher ratio. Fifty of these new posts are for additional secondary teachers in science and technology, and the other 100 are for primary teachers allocated to small schools where expertise in certain specialist subjects is at present not available. The additional 50 specialist teachers in secondary schools are one element of a major new vocational education programme in Northern Ireland. A provision of £5·6 million is included in these Estimates for this, and the aim is to increase the numbers of pupils following courses in subjects such as science, economics, computing and craft design and technology.
In finalising the teachers' pay deal in the negotiating committee, it was agreed that a further 70 full-time posts over and above the additional 150 that I have just mentioned would he allocated this year. Therefore, the overall effect is that the pupil-teacher ratio in primary and secondary schools will be improved from an estimated 18·6 to 18·4 pupils per teacher in a single year. That is the best single-year improvement since 1979, and will be the best pupil-teacher ratio that the Province has ever had.
The Estimates for the education capital programme provide for total capital expenditure in excess of £47 million. This will allow for a substantial programme of new building projects to start, and for an increase of £2·3 million on planned levels of expenditure on minor works and equipment. A total of 24 major school building projects should be started this year. The capital provision also includes £2 million to begin much needed work on the replacement and upgrading of schools for the mentally handicapped.
In Vote 2, total provision of £127·8 million is sought for higher and further education and for teacher training. This allows for continued funding of the two Northern Ireland universities on the principle of parity with comparable institutions in Great Britain. In further education, provision has been made for an additional 30 lecturers

from next September for appointments in the priority areas of' engineering, business studies and microelectronics. The balance of education expenditure, £34·9 million, is sought in Vote 3. This will provide for increased spending by the museum on purchases and conservation. It also provides increased aid for the Arts Council and for the establishment of a business sponsorship incentive scheme for the arts.
Finally, for the Department of Health and Social Security a total of £715 million is sought in Vote 1 to maintain and further improve Northern Ireland's health and personal social services. The largest single element within this total is the health and social services boards' revenue expenditure. This is estimated at £583 million, which is about 6 per cent. more than for last year.
A further £29 million has been earmarked for capital expenditure. This will permit the continuation of a substantial programme of major and minor work schemes. I am pleased to say that, subject to the final stages of investment appraisal, we shall also be able to give a boost to the development of hospital services in the north-west of the Province. This will include, for instance, additional wards and services at Altnagelvin area hospital, the replacement of unsatisfactory accommodation for geriatric patients at Waterside hospital and the provision of a satellite renal dialysis unit at Tyrone county hospital, Omagh.

Mr. William Ross: Has any provision been made in the Estimates relating to hospitals for the employment of sufficient nurses to bring the staff at Altnagelvin up to what is required?

Mr. Stanley: I shall be glad to look into that for the hon. Gentleman. If my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), who will reply to the debate, can give that detail, he will do so, otherwise I shall be glad to ask my hon. Friend who has responsibility for DHSS matters to write to the hon. Gentleman.
Finally, in Vote 4 a total of £785 million is required to meet the full range of non-contributory and family benefits.
I hope that this explanation of the main features of the draft order has been helpful. I commend the order to the House.

Mr. Stuart Bell: At the outset I should like to thank the Minister for taking us through the order in the way that he did. I should also like to congratulate him on his maiden speech on this subject. He was the Minister of State for the Armed Forces when I first came into the House. I remember having some exchanges with him then.
It is interesting to think how things might have been if' the result of the election had been different and if we had been sitting on the Government Benches. I should have had nine civil servants in the box behind the Speaker's Chair to help me with my speech. That would be a great improvement on the services that we have in opposition. I support Richard Heller in The Mail on Sunday, Who stated that there should be some form of Ministry for the Opposition so that we would receive the help of civil servants and be able to make wondrous speeches on the Floor of the House. However, as Bernard Shaw once said, "Some men dream great dreams and wonder why. Others


dream great dreams and wonder why not." I am in the second category, of wondering why not. Hopefully that will help me to make this a short speech on the Appropriation order.
A singular feature of our debates on other occasions during the past two years has been the way in which we somehow had to mingle the political side of Appropriation orders with the financial side. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and your colleagues had some difficulty in bringing us back to order because the opportunities for discussing genuine political issues in Northern Ireland were not available to us. Tonight we have had a rumbustious debate that so exhausted its participants that most of them have now left the Chamber. However, we have had a good debate that leaves us open to talk about economic matters. That must be of some interest and importance to the people of Northern Ireland. As we all know, their daily lives go on and the people there must come to terms with their own existence. As part of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland must benefit, as the rest of us benefit, from the welfare state and public expenditure, from the appropriate use of money in Northern Ireland and from value for money. That must be in the interests of the people who live in Northern Ireland.
The £3·5 billion to which the Minister referred is welcome. When I consider the way in which Ministers run the affairs of Northern Ireland, I like to think that they follow some of the policies which I would say are interventionist and which they have no doubt adopted from the Labour party. However, the Minister was quick to cover his tracks on that and to say that, although there have been signs of progress in the economy and the challenge of competitiveness, that was part and parcel of a Tory philosophy that was assisting Northern Ireland. However, a good look at the Appropriation Estimates shows healthy subsidies, and we are the last people to disagree with that. Indeed, we welcome the manner in which Ministers of the Crown use their diligence and skills to inject money into the economy of Northern Ireland for the benefit of the people there.
The Minister said that unemployment was unacceptably high. Coming from Cleveland, which has an even higher rate of unemployment, I understand the difficulties and social consequences of unemployment. There is a lack of aspiration and a lack of certainty about one's future, and a lack of any sense of security. The Minister referred to a gradual improvement in the employment conditions in Northern Ireland. We have had a general election in the meantime and have been unable to catch up with some of the developments that have taken place there during the past few months. I was glad to see, thanks to the Belfast Telegraph, that three firms in Northern Ireland—Ulster Carpet Mills, Adria Strabane and Ulster Weaving—have a programme of expansion amounting to £12 million and that 200 new jobs will be created.
Two other firms, Norbrook Laboratories and Thermomax, have been honoured with Queen's Awards for Exports, which is a sign that, notwithstanding the difficulties in Northern Ireland, a strong impetus and desire for exports exist. Norbrook Laboratories secured the award for increasing exports by more than 80 per cent. over the past three years and Ulster Weaving has secured orders in China, which shows the dynamic spirit of the people of Northern Ireland. They do not sit on their

behinds but get out and try to find business and come to terms with the world in which we live. They are to be congratulated on that effort on behalf of the work force and the economy.
I read with great interest the statements by the Minister about the new Belfast harbour link and the £60 million cross-harbour road and rail link for the centre of Belfast. In March, the Government launched a £240 million plan to change the face of the Lagan valley. It is significant that the links were approved following a public inquiry in 1978, under a Labour Government. Now that the edges of monetarism have worn slightly thin, the opportunity is there to go ahead with that investment. I should be glad to see that investment soon.
The Under-Secretary with responsiblity for that Department said that he was unable to give a time scale for the construction of the bridges but work would start on the statutory changes. We shall be urging the Minister to get on with that job to see that this link is converted from a dream in a planner's mind into a harbour link in Belfast. It will strengthen the economy still further and help it overall by putting into it £60 million.
A British company is to open a factory in Larne to manufacture plastic windows, creating 100 jobs over a year. That may not seem a lot, but it is an improvement and we welcome it. Star Glaze, a nationwide window supplier, is opening up a 14,000 sq ft factory that is part of the Northern Ireland Industrial Development Board's plans. It is interesting to see how that board is contributing to the local economy. It has not been overwhelmed by the difficulties of the days of De Lorean, but is contributing to the economy.
We note, on the agricultural side, that the Irish and British Governments and the European Commission have received a report on the Lough Melvin catchment area study, which would involve a project between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, and which would be of some interest to the underdeveloped economy of that area. It has a lack of mineral and agricultural resources, and the development plan, which has been worked out to ensure the use of natural resources, would maximise the potential for economic growth with particular reference to tourism.
The island of Ireland, and Northern Ireland in particular, has a great deal to offer tourists. The beauty of the area and the overall environment is ideal for tourism and this project, involving the two Governments, is welcome. We hope that it will be developed from the study into a specific programme.
I am not surprised to hear that Mr. Michael Murphy, head of the Western education and library board, is concerned about the condition of school property, which has deteriorated over the years. One of the difficulties caused by education cuts in the late 1970s and early 1980s was that there was bound to be a deterioration of school property and buildings. No doubt the Minister will want to look at this again to examine the disquiet and the warnings of Mr. Murphy.
I am aware that the Government have placed money into schools in Northern Ireland. A £2·46 million package for schools in Northern Ireland for 1987–88 was announced by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who has responsibility for education. There was an allocation of £300,000 for books and materials for the new examinations, over and above the £2 million already announced for 1986–87 and 1987–88. There


was a further £2·3 million for additional minor works and equipment in schools, of which £0·3 million was earmarked for energy conservation measures. Therefore, I am aware that the Government are putting money into the specific areas to which I have referred, but I believe that Mr. Murphy's complaint should be considered. No doubt the Minister will consider it in due course.
I shall end my brief study of the Northern Irish economy with a brief reference to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. When we talk of the Northern Irish economy and the money that the Government are putting into it, we must never forget that that economy turns on its work force. The work force turns on a consensus and combination between management and workers. The prosperous and successful factories are those where there is harmony and consensus and where trade unions play their part.
I am pleased to say that the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, through its membership, plays a useful part in the development of the Northern Irish economy. That economy must face the difficulties of a worldwide economic climate that is not always helpful, together with the fact that it is based in the north-west corner of the British Isles. It also must face terrorist difficulties of which we are all aware. Nevertheless, the congress works hard with management and Government and it renders a significant service. It should be placed on record that the congress has our full support in its endeavours to improve the economy of Northern Ireland.

Mr. William Ross: I feel sure that the Minister, as a new face at the Dispatch Box, will understand if I do not give him a particular welcome. The mere fact that he has had to be appointed to his office is the clearest possible demonstration of the failure of Government to replace the workable system of the 1920 compromise. Apparently, the Government have been trying to find a replacement for 13 years, but they do not seem to be getting any closer to a solution. The mere presence of a new face is a sign of Government failure that should not be ignored. It is also a sign of the Government's failure to listen to the majority opinion in Northern Ireland.
This debate takes place three times a year and it gives us the chance to scratch the surface regarding expenditure in the departments of the Northern Ireland Office. Indeed, if one wants to find out exactly what is going on, it takes many weeks of research to uncover all the detail. After such research there must be inquiries to judge how well the money is spent. However, I do not wish to venture into that matter tonight, but I hope that, on a future occasion, opportunities will occur to explore expenditure and whether or not there is good value for money.
It is noticeable that the first item in part I of the schedule relates to rating. This is a topical matter because we are now talking about replacing the rating system in Great Britain with a community charge or poll tax, depending on how one looks at it.
I can appreciate the great difficulties that arise for many people from the present system of rating, but, at the same time, I am far from satisfied that the proposed replacement will be any better than the existing system. What steps are being taken towards the replacement of the present rating system in Northern Ireland? I am one of those who believe

that if people are spending taxpayers' money there should be a direct link between the moneys collected and spent and the activities of those who spend it.
In Northern Ireland we have a regional rate as well as a local government rate. Of course, there is little control over the spending of the regional rate, which is levied for things outside the control of the present system of local government. When the Minister comes to reply I hope that he will expand a little upon the Government's thinking concerning rating in Northern Ireland. Is it the Government's intention to replace or to retain the rating system? If the Government are to retain it in its present form, may we be told why? It can be retained in the light of the changes here only if it is vastly superior to the system that prevails here. If that is so, why not simply apply the Northern Ireland system to the United Kingdom as a whole rather than go through the turmoil that seems about to engulf the House in the coming weeks and months?
There is the problem borne by many commercial premises in Northern Ireland as a result of the rates burden that they face. That is affected in its turn by planning decisions that are now allowing large out-of-town shopping centres which are, in many cases, nothing more nor less than a new town centre. I would welcome a new factory in my constituency, but I cannot give the same welcome to a large shopping complex that will take profits and hard-earned cash away from the area and put it into the pockets of investors far away and do severe damage to the existing town centre shop owners who spend all their money in the community. If we are to have large out-of-town shopping developments, will that be reflected in some way in the rating charges that are laid upon such developments in order to redress the balance so than they and the present town centre commerical enterprises will compete on a comparable footing? I wonder whether the Government are looking at a tax on turnover or a tax on income rather than a simple straightforward charge per head which might be difficult to collect.
If the Government are to look at the rating system in Northern Ireland, as I hope they will, will they look again at the thorny question of rates on many community halls and such like throughout the country that find the rates a heavy burden? That has been a bone of contention for many halls for many years. Hon. Members representing Northern Ireland know that the problem extends across the political, social and religious divides and has not been much help to many small halls which perform a community service but have no income upon which to draw. They often find themselves having to make fundraising efforts simply to pay the rates. I hope that that will be looked at again.
A week or so ago we heard reports in the House about the meeting of the Agriculture Ministers in Europe. It appeared to me, not only from the Question Time that I sat through but from reading Hansard afterwards, that the future of agriculture, not only in Northern Ireland but throughout the United Kingdom, is in a perilous position. It drew to my attention one of the first speeches I made in the House in about 1974 or 1975 when I asked the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, now Lord Peart, what we were going to do in the European Community with the food surpluses whenever they arose. Even at that time it was evident that, as the size of farms in the Community increased, they would also increase the amount of food produced from fewer and fewer workers. That has now happened and that trend is not yet at an end.


I am thinking of countries such as France and Germany which have large areas of high quality agricultural land and can produce large quantities of food. We simply do not have the money to pay for it because it is perfectly plain that no further money is available, and we no longer have the mouths to eat it. Therefore, places such as Northern Ireland, Ireland as a whole, Wales and the Highlands of Scotland will suffer grievously in the long term.
There is no getting rid of the surpluses. They are there. Nobody can buy them and we simply cannot give them away. We went through the hoop of trying to give away a certain amount of food this year, and some of the systems used for giving it away did not work very well.
We have been told that there can be a shift to other crops. What other crops? I suppose that we can shift sheep from the hills to the lowlands whenever people stop growing barley. We can also shift sheep on to the pasture that used to be eaten by dairy cows. However, what becomes of the man on the hill? He could shift to forestry, but to what end? Forestry is a long-term crop. The average farmer cannot derive an income from it year by year.
The farming community and the Government must seriously face the problems that are not a thousand years away. Those problems are just down the road a little bit. They are likely to get worse over the next two or three years. Those problems do not simply impinge on agriculture in Northern Ireland; they also affect the saw mill sector. There is a shortage of timber in the whole island of Ireland. Modern mills swallow the most enormous amounts of timber. It is not all high quality timber and it is used mainly to produce pallets. A modern mill gobbles up that stuff and uses thousands of tonnes of such timber a year. There may be jobs in packaging and removing the trees from the forests, but it is not a paying proposition for the farmer who must grow the timber. There are definite limits in that direction.
I return to the problem that less food will be needed from the farmers in Northern Ireland and from the marginal areas of the country as a whole. That must translate into fewer farmers being employed on the land. That would be most grievously felt in areas with small farms. Of course, that would mean more machinery. We have only to consider the amount of money that farmers owe to the banks for machinery to realise that many farmers have no chance of ever getting their heads above water, let alone earning a decent living again.
The practical effects of these farming changes—unless there is continuous Government action to prevent it—will mean more marginal land returning to very rough pasture. There will be a tremendous loss of jobs in agriculture and inevitably there will be a loss of jobs in ancillary industries. No representative from Northern Ireland would welcome that. It is true that much of Northern Ireland depends on agriculture. Unless the Government come up with a long-term comprehensive plan, there is very little hope for many of the small farmers in Northern Ireland.
There is always a need for capital grants in farming. In future, those capital grants should be restricted to improvements to farm buildings, conservation, and the effluent from silage which is a serious problem in many parts of the Province. I ask for building grants simply because if we are to keep people on the land, they must

have tolerable conditions in which to work and receive a reasonable income. As farms grow larger—a development that I do not welcome—and as we switch more and more to pasture, beef and sheepmeat, I believe that there will be a need for continual grant-aid in those areas if only to make working conditions tolerable for those involved in the industry.
I know that the Government are trying to reduce payments to the common agricultural policy. That is a good thing. I believe that the CAP has got completely out of hand. However, I ask the Minister to bear in mind the fact that the route being pursued by the United Kingdom Government flies directly in the path that the Government of the Irish Republic must follow. There will continue to be problems with smuggling on the border. There will be continuing problems with the processing of meat and meat products and eventually problems will probably arise with regard to the ownership and control of meat plants and factories in Northern Ireland. We face massive changes in Northern Ireland agriculture, and the agricultural community has not yet come to terms with them. Have the Government done so? I ask them to pull their finger out and do something about it.
I asked the Minister in an intervention whether there would be extra money to employ nurses in some hospitals in the Western board area. He may not be aware that nurses there work a 12-hour shift system. I so not think that many other groups of workers, excluding those foolish enough to become Members, willingly work a 12-hour shift. People's lives may depend on the nursing profession. I doubt whether a nurse coming on duty at 8 o'clock in the morning and working until 8 o'clock at night is as competent in the last four hours as in the first four. This is a money-saving device for the Western board which is most unwelcome.
My mother is in a geriatric unit and she is unlikely ever to leave it. I understand that some nurses find working there convenient in terms of the time they want to spend at home, but I do not believe that that system should continue. We should carefully consider that point and the fact that the Altnagelvin training hospital finds it impossible to have a full complement of nurses in certain wards, such as labour wards. That busy hospital covers a large part of the north-west. I should like the Minister to ascertain whether it is possible to bring staffing levels up to proper numbers and to do something about nurses' working conditions. It is daft to spend a lot of money bringing SRNs to midwifery standard and then saying, "Sorry, but we do not have a job for you in this hospital or in the Western area" and turfing them off, sometimes to the ends of the earth. Why spend money training the girls to do the job if we will not benefit from their expertise when they finish their training? If money is tight, these funds could be better spent. This system should not be allowed to continue.
I could mention many other problems. It is like walking through an orchard with a lot of ripe fruit hanging from the trees. I have raised these few items in the hope that this will be the last time I have to do so in such a debate. The sooner I am shot of the present system of government of Northern Ireland, the better pleased I shall be, because it has been a disaster for the Province and its people and it shows no sign of bringing us peace, stability or prosperity in any shape or form.

Mr. James Kilfedder: I wish to concentrate on the scandalous treatment of the people of North Down by the Eastern health and social services board bureaucrats who are carrying out the Government's dictates and discriminating against the people I have the honour of representing.
The population of North Down has increased dramatically over the decades and will continue to do so. The present population must be about 70,000 and the number of elderly people is growing. Taken together with the Ards area, the population is 131,500.
That means that the North Down and the Ards areas combined have 20·6 per cent. of the population of the entire Eastern health and social services board area. But—and this is where my charge of discrimination arises although they have 20·6 per cent. of the population, they do not have 20·6 per cent. of the services. It is disgraceful that such an important area, with a high-density population, should have no proper hospital facilities. I repeat my charge to the Government: it is a case of downright discrimination. Let me say, in front of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), that if it happened in a national area, people would be marching and shouting "Discrimination." I shall shout "Discrimination" at the Government in the House tonight.
What deeply concerns me and those I represent is that further drastic changes are planned by the Eastern health board. It intends to carry out the Government's wishes to make—I quote the usual Civil Service jargon for cuts—"the most effective use of its facilities". The truth seems to be that, in the eyes of the Government, the people do not matter. The Government and their minions in the health board give vent to expressions of compassion for the people, but that is where their compassion begins and ends.
In a letter issued by the Eastern health board and dated 15 May 1987, the chief administrator of the board declared:
The Eastern Health Board has completed its Area Strategic Plan 1987–1992 and is now engaged in implementing the first year's Operational Plan of the Strategic Plan. An element of the Board's Operational Plan for 1987–1988 involves proposals for the transfer of certain services and the consequent closure of some facilities.
Those proposals include the closure of the Cultra and Crawfordsburn hospitals. The elderly patients in the hospitals, many of whom have been there for a number of years, are to be dispersed to various other areas.
No regard seems to be paid to the wishes of the elderly patients, who naturally become accustomed to a particular place and a particular home, and who will undoubtedly be adversely affected by such a harsh move. Similarly, no regard seems to be paid to the relatives of those people who live in the area, and who will have more difficulty in travelling to new areas further afield. But pounds seem to matter more than people in the eyes of the Government, whose meanness and lack of concern are revealed in every public expenditure cut in health and social services in the area that I represent.
In addition to the closure of those two hospitals, which care for the elderly and the mentally handicapped elderly, the board intends to proceed with the further undermining of the Bangor and Ards hospitals, with the transfer of more acute services to the Ulster hospital at Dundonald. The Ards hospital will lose its surgical overflow beds, and

the Bangor hospital will lose 18 surgical and six gynaecology beds, leaving a 16-bed ward in the Bangor hospital to provide general surgery and gynaecological services. That effectively amounts to a 40 per cent. reduction in general surgery beds in the district. The number of gynaecology beds at Bangor hospital will be reduced from 16 to eight. If that happens, no further major gynaecology surgery can be carried out there. Therefore, these proposals will drastically downgrade the Bangor hospital.
Despite the hoard's offer of consultation, these proposals will go ahead because the Government and the board are totally indifferent to the rights and needs of the people of the area. In addition to the permanent population, there is a steady increase each year, particularly from tourism, especially in July and August when up to 7,000 or 8,000 more people flood into the area.
Although the North Down and Ards areas comprise 20·6 per cent. of the population of the Eastern health board region, they are allocated only 6 per cent. of the total number of general surgery beds in the region. That is a disgrace. I protest most vehemently at this further attack on the people of the North Down and Ards areas and their right to proper medical facilities.
The Belfast area has numerous hospitals. There is the Royal Victoria hospital, the City hospital, with that monster block that cost more than £60 million of taxpayers' money, the Mater hospital and others. The Belfast area swallows up the vast bulk of the money available to the Eastern health board.
Do any of the bureaucrats who make these vital decisions in the comfort of their luxurious offices, and who travel to those offices by car, ever consider the hardship that most people endure when travelling long distances by public transport to visit their relatives in hospital? That hardship will be further increased if these proposals go through. It is exceedingly difficult for people living in country areas to make journeys that require one or more changes on public transport. Although this is regarded as an affluent area, a third of the population do not own cars and must depend on an erratic public transport service that involves one or more changes.

Mr. William Ross: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that, given the present rate of car theft at the Royal Victoria hospital, it is probably advisable to go by public transport because anyone who goes by car will probably have to walk home?

Mr. Kilfedder: My hon. Friend highlights the truth. In my judgment, the Royal Victoria hospital ought to be closed and a new hospital built somewhere else. Most people who make use of the Royal Victoria hospital facilities do not like to go there, either as patients or visitors, because they feel intimidated. Far too many terrorist offences have occurred within the area of the Royal Victoria hospital, and, as my hon. Friend points out, many a car has been stolen within the hospital grounds. It might be better to go by public transport, but better still if people did not have to go there at all, certainly not from the Ards area, or Bangor or anywhere else in the North Down region. As well as the difficulties of travelling, the cost of doing so is now considerable.
If the board's proposals go ahead, it will not be possible for the staff at the Bangor and Ards hospitals to cope with the amount of work and number of admissions that have


occurred in previous years. Already the waiting list at Bangor hospital has increased from 230 in 1985 to 395 in 1986, and it will increase further. More people will have to wait longer, and that will be exceedingly difficult for those who urgently need medical treatment.
There will be difficulties in admitting all emergency cases. I understand from medical practitioners that the Ulster hospital cannot always take emergency cases, and the board's policy is that central Belfast hospitals should not generally admit emergencies from the North Down and Ards area. So the decision by the Eastern health and social services board to remove the ear, nose and throat department from the Ulster hospital to the City and Royal hospitals adds to the problems that the people in my area face. It is another example of the total indifference of the Eastern health board and its officials.
In 1985, 41,000 new patients were treated in casualty at the Ulster hospital at Dundonald. Each week, 35 patients are seen as ear, nose and throat emergencies and the Ulster hospital has one of the fastest patient turnover rates of any hospital in Northern Ireland. However, the emergency services at the Ulster hospital will not be complete without the ear, nose and throat back-up facilities. Therefore, the Government and the board will need to re-examine the provision for the people of my area.
I demand—and I have made this demand before, both inside and outside the House—the provision of a new hospital for the North Down and Ards area. Of course, that will take some time, and in the meantime I therefore demand the upgrading of the Bangor and Ards hospitals to provide an effective acute hospital service for the people of the area. I demand the provision of adequate casualty services for the district. I demand the provision of purpose-built accommodation for every patient, which ought to be provided in the area before the Cultra and Crawfordsburn hospitals are closed.
Surely, in this day and age, a Government should take pride in looking after the elderly. It is no use saying that they have finished their lives and can therefore be dispersed as so many numbers—people without names, pasts or relatives. I demand the retention of the ear, nose and throat services at the Ulster hospital and at Ards and Bangor.
Finally, I refer to the expenditure on the housing services in the Estimates. It is beyond comprehension that the Housing Executive should refuse to give a grant if only one wall of a room has been disturbed or damaged as a result of work that is carried out. Such work includes the replacement of gas with another form of heating and the renewal of old electric wiring. As we would expect, most tenants are house proud. They have often spent considerable sums of money on papering and painting their rooms, and if one wall has been disturbed the whole room has to be renovated—unless the Housing Executive expects tenants to put up with having one wall out of character or to accept being treated as second-class citizens. Many families, and many houses and flats, are affected by the refusal of the Housing Executive to pay for such work. I believe that the executive ought to be ordered to give grants to carry out that work.
Does such a rule apply in England? Do councils in Britain refuse grants to tenants of public sector housing where council work has damaged one wall of their homes? It is not the fault of the tenant, but is a result of necessary

work being carried out by the district council. No matter how much they may be criticised by hon. Members, I do not believe that district councils here would be so mean as to deny grants to tenants in such circumstances.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: Here on the mainland some houses have been in a worse state after they have been modernised.

Mr. Kilfedder: The hon. Gentleman's remarks arouse my deepest sympathy. I have come across cases where work has been carried out by sub-contractors for the Housing Executive in Northern Ireland and they have left the houses in a dreadful state. It does not matter to a tenant who does not care tuppence about the state of his house, but that is not the sort of tenant who should be looked after by the Housing Executive. The Housing Executive, and the housing authority in the hon. Gentleman's area, should take greater care of its tenants.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: The Housing Executive in the north of Ireland believes that it is required to inspect only 10 per cent. of all improvement work carried out. That is why so many houses are left in such a state. The hon. Gentleman and others will agree that it is ridiculous that only 10 per cent. of the work carried out by outside contractors is inspected by those who are paid public money to do the work.

Mr. Kilfedder: I could spend some time pursuing that point, but I will take up the matter later. I do not wish to take up any more time of the House on this, except to say that I wish we could go back to the old days when the rent collector would come round and could report back to the Housing Executive or the council what had to be done on a house or if work had been badly carried out. There is a great distance between the Housing Executive and the tenant, who is often treated as a nuisance.
I urge the Government to reconsider the payment of grant only when more than one wall must be redecorated. Common sense must dictate the payment of the grant. This may be a matter of amusement to some people, but it is very important to tenants, and I back those tenants in their demand for fair treatment.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: I wish the new Under-Secretary of State well in his post. In many ways, he has drawn the short straw with Northern Ireland. I know that he will do his very best for the people of Northern Ireland and I wish him well in his stay with us. I pay tribute to his predecessor, the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott), who was in the north of Ireland for longer than any other Minister. He is a man of great humanity and he gave his all to help the people of the north of Ireland, and I wish him well in his new post.
Nothing highlights the differences between North Down and my constituency better than the points so validly made by the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) in relation to housing. I wish to mention housing because problems are developing which are not being catered for by forward thinking and which are not being anticipated. They will catch up with us. if they have not already arrived.
I bow to no one in my admiration for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, its concept and the way in which it has grappled with what was an almost impossible situation at the time when it was charged with that


responsibility. I defend with everything at my disposal the decision to have an independent body such as the Northern Ireland Housing Executive which can and will deal independently with the whole question of housing in what is a sensitive area. However, I see problems arising and it would be wrong if we did not look at those problems to try to get them right.
It may be overstating it to say that there is some flab within the Housing Executive and its approach to the housing problem in the North of Ireland. That flab to some extent comes from a lack of public accountability, which is one of the factors that is counter-productive for the Housing Executive. One only has to deal on a daily basis with the problems of the Housing Executive and of tenants to realise that something more is needed. I suggest that there are fears that it may be coming to the end of a cycle. It is time to get a new injection of imagination, dynamism and professionalism into the Housing Executive, because that is needed.
People in the Housing Executive have a herculean job and I take nothing away from them. However, there are times when there is a lot to be desired. The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) dealt excellently with his constituency. Similarly, I will point to my constituency and try to draw some conclusions. My constituency is essentially a rural area. It has the three urban areas of Armagh, Newry and Keady. In the Armagh urban area, 236 people are on the waiting list and in the incoming year 12 new houses will be completed. In the Keady area, 53 people are on the waiting list and no houses will be completed in the incoming year. In the Newry area, 371 people are on the waiting list and three houses will be completed in the incoming year.
I made it clear at the beginning that I was talking about the larger urban areas. In those larger urban areas, where there is a waiting list of 660 people, 15 houses will be completed in the incoming financial year. That, by anybody's standards, is bad planning and simply cannot be allowed to continue. I challenged the Housing Executive on that and I continue to challenge it. However, I get expertly evasive answers when I ask it how it can justify the fact that, in a town such as Newry with 371 people on the waiting list, only three houses will be completed in the incoming financial year. I have not been able to get a satisfactory reply. I have not been able to get anyone within the Housing Executive, central Government or the Northern Ireland Office to tell me how three houses can cater for the needs of 371 people. I await that reply.
The same applies to the number of houses unfit for habitation that are evident throughout the whole of the north of Ireland. I accept that my constituency is not the worst. I believe that Fermanagh and South Tyrone has the highest incidence of unfit housing in Northern Ireland. In Newry and Armagh, which are not the worst by any means, 11·5 per cent. of housing is unfit for human habitation. In addition, 10·8 per cent. of houses lack basic facilities, so 23 per cent. of the housing stock in the constituency has that type of inherent defect.
I can understand that shortage of money prevents sufficient grants from being made and that extraneous factors may make it impossible to make the necessary grants, but I cannot understand the Housing Executive in the southern region failing to make any application for additional moneys in the autumn review. There must be something radically wrong when the authority that has

responsibility for dealing with public housing does not make the necessary application. I have raised the issue with the executive and the Department of the Environment. There appears to be gross incompetence when those responsible in the southern area did not even ask for money that was available. That cannot be tolerated.
It seems incredible that only 10 per cent. of work carried out by the executive is inspected. Apparently the executive feels that that is the extent of its responsibility. In other words, 90 per cent. of the work carried out for the executive by outside contractors can go uninspected. I am sure that no Member from the north of Ireland can say that he has found that all works are properly undertaken. I have found examples where payment has been made and yet no work has been done. That is a matter of record. Proper inspection must be made, because it is clearly intolerable that public moneys should be spent without proper control. It is intolerable also that tenants should be treated in this way. In any improvement scheme in any executive estate, it will be found that the contractor is taking the easy way out and that the executive has taken it. It passes the buck to the consultants and at the end of the day no one is responsible. The public purse loses and the tenant most definitely loses.
I know that I shall be forgiven if I take the opportunity of referring to Belfast, West, which is not my constituency. It is unfortunate that the person elected to represent it in this place does not put himself in the position in which he can advance the arguments that I wish to put before the House.
I welcome the decision to demolish the Divis flats. I ask that the provision of proper and adequate replacement housing is proceeded with as speedily as possible, in consultation with local residents. That is crucial. Thinking should now extend to the removal of the Unity flats as well. Whatever else they have done, they have contributed nothing to unity within the community. They have contributed nothing also to the well-being of tenants.
There are 4,500 who are waiting to be rehoused in Belfast, West, and the majority are not nationalists. In broad terms they would be described as unionists. There is a huge waiting list because of the cycle of redevelopment. This relatively small constituency probably experiences more problems than any other area in any city under this jurisdiction.
I noted with interest that special reference was made in the Gracious Speech to inner-city development. There is the opportunity to take Belfast, West, be it the Shankill part of it or the Falls area, for example, and to end the present deprivation. I ask that a start be made to give the people decent and proper housing. That might be one of the ways of starting to deal with the enormous problems faced by the people of Belfast, West.
I wish to make a brief reference to the allocation of money for roads. I shall make a genuine point. The Minister responsible for the Environment will know the areas about which I speak. I challenge one of the theses of the Department's roads executive—that it gives an equal allocation to each area in the north of Ireland. That is exactly correct and absolutely fine if all areas start from an equal position, but that is not the reality. It was with some amusement that I listened to the hon. Member for North Down speak about transport and road conditions in North Down. I have no doubt that the worst system of roads in the north of Ireland is in south Armagh. For


historical, political and various other reasons it is the worst road system in the north of Ireland. It is wrong to say that area should stand on an equal financial footing with, say, an area such as North Down or greater Londonderry, where there is a magnificent road system. I challenge such a statement.
Again I ask the Minister responsible for the Environment whether, at his convenience, he and his officials will assess the situation with me. Let us drive along the roads, and then let him tell me that it is not the worst road system in the north of Ireland. I ask that the roads be examined. The theory of equal allocation of money should be challenged. Unless all areas start on an equal basis, it is unfair.
I am disappointed that the issue of equality of employment in the north of Ireland has not moved as quickly as it should. I ask that my remarks not be interpreted as political, religious or sectarian points; they are not. Everybody who lives in the north of Ireland has a right to be treated equally, whatever his religion, politics, colour or creed. I was impressed by a "Panorama" programme last night, which dealt with the same subject in Britain. One set of words stuck with me. A person from America was interviewed and asked how changes were brought about effectively and quickly in America. He replied that, when he came down from the mountain, Moses did not bring down 10 recommendations, he brought down 10 commandments. In reality, if we are ever to get to grips with the abuse of privilege, be it in Northern Ireland or in Britain, we must have a proper sanction which will make firms do what they should do and make them act justly.

Rev. William McCrea: Why has the hon. Gentleman's party, in all the years that it has talked about discrimination, never once spoken about deliberate bias in employment against loyalists and Protestants in Mid-Ulster and, in particular, in Omagh, in the Civil Service, the Department of Health and Social Services and the Department of Education? Why has there been silence from the hon. Gentleman's party?

Mr. Mallon: No doubt the Minister will have taken note of the hon. Gentleman's question. I have no doubt also that the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) is aware that the Departments that he mentioned are directly governed by central Government. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about that, and draw to the attention of the House the situation that exists in Government training centres. I asked the Minister to look at that and over a year ago I was given categorical assurances that steps would be taken. I take up the hon. Gentleman's point: if one cannot end this type of discrimination in places where a Government Department is making the decisions, how can one end it in private enterprise and in semi-state bodies? I ask the Government to look carefully at the Government training centres.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the absence of real employment opportunities creates great difficulties for people from both sides in Northern Ireland? Does he further agree that, until we get inward investment and commitment by Government to stimulate the economy and create worthwhile jobs, there will be continuing difficulties?

Mr. Mallon: I completely accept that point. The ultimate way to end any discrimination in job allocation is to have sufficient jobs to make it quite obvious that there is work for everybody.
I should like to make one final reference to west Belfast. In 1984 there was an official recommendation that another further education college would be needed in Belfast, and that there was an obvious need for it to be built in west Belfast. The Government then announced that money would be available for this project, but since then the Belfast education and library board has delayed any movement towards setting it up. The board has set up working parties, but we know what that means. The matter goes from a working party to a standing committee and that is worse. It seems that the Belfast education and library board is moving away from the initial recommendations. The Minister responsible for education in Northern Ireland should quickly move the board to get that fourth college established in west Belfast where there is an obvious need.
It is unfortunate that agriculture in Northern Ireland can seldom be debated with the Minister who is completely responsible. I make no criticism whatever of the present incumbent in the Department of Agriculture. However, agriculture is our stock industry and the north of Ireland depends upon it. We are waiting for the agricultural development programme that we thought we would have had before now. We were assured that we would have it by now, because it is crucial, especially for the small farmer. Also, unless the integrated rural development programme is adopted and pursued by Government under the terms of the Mather report, which has been accepted by the European Parliament and by the Commission but not yet by Government, we will not have the framework within which we can start to deal with the component parts such as housing, lack of employment or agriculture itself.

Mr. A. Cecil Walker: There are one or two matters in the order about which I should like to speak before addressing the House on the matters in my brief. They are based on the Department of the Environment vote 2, page 4, on housing services.
First, in connection with vote 3, page 4, under the Department of Economic Development, I am concerned at the large amounts of aid being given to companies to promote activities that are already more than adequately catered for by established companies. Such aid does nothing to create extra jobs; it leads only to closures and subsequent unemployment by transferring operations from one part of the Province to another. In many instances, the services offered by the new company are vastly inferior to those already in existence, largely because of lack of experience in that area.
Secondly, on the Department of Health and Social Services, vote 1, page 5, I stress the great need in north Belfast for extra resources for the development and maintenance of services for the frail and elderly. The cuts in home help provision are causing great handicaps to those sections of our population. Those people are finding it impossible to cope in the hours allotted to their welfare. In many instances, home helps themselves provide extra services out of pity and concern. There must be other areas in which economies could be made without endangering


the lives of our senior citizens who have contributed so much to the welfare of the Province throughout their working lives.
Some comment is also necessary about part II, page 4, vote 3, about the situation in Shorts regarding the flying of our national flag in the workplace. That flag is flown to commemorate the battle of the Somme and the sacrifice that was made by the valiant men from both parts of Ireland who gave their lives for freedom and democracy. There is now the suggestion that such displays are provocative to the Catholic work force. I can categorically refute such suggestions. I know many Roman Catholic workers at Shorts and, as far as I am aware, not one has ever complained of such intimidation.
During the time of the troubles in the Province, when riots were prevalent, members of the Protestant work force escorted their Roman Catholic fellow workers to and from their homes, many of which were in interface areas, so that they could pursue their occupations in peace and safety. Recently, a Roman Catholic worker in Castlereagh was presented with a £400 microwave oven as a wedding present from his largely Protestant colleagues on the factory floor. Those are not instances of provocation or intimidation, and I hope that the Roman Catholics who work in such places will make statements to that effect.

Rev. William McCrea: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is an absolute disgrace that, at a time of great unemployment in the Province, members of the SDLP are playing political games with people's jobs, as they are doing in Shorts and other factories?

Mr. Walker: I certainly abhor anyone of any party who plays politics with people's jobs. I noticed that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) mentioned something along those lines in his answer to the hon. Gentleman's last question. I should like to put on record that I abhor such activities.
Turning now to the main thrust of my submission, as my party's spokesman for housing and construction, it falls to me to comment on this important matter which concerns us all in Northern Ireland—the part that the Housing Executive plays in the provision and repair of public sector housing. As I have said on many occasions, the activities of that autocratic and dictatorial organisation leave much to be desired. Its performance since the last time that I spoke on the Appropriation Order has been anything but satisfactory.

Mr. Beggs: Does my hon. Friend agree that the time has come for a thorough public inquiry into the operation of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to expose the many cover-ups that take place and those that have taken place in the past?

Mr. Walker: I appreciate the interjection from my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs). If he listens to me as I go through my speech, some of the things that he has mentioned will become clear. It has been said—and I find it difficult to disagree with the feeling—that it was the Anglo-Irish diktat and the involvement of a foreign decadent state in the affairs of Northern Ireland, including many aspects of housing, that accounted for an attitude in the Housing Executive that can only be construed as anti-unionist. I feel that this is in some way responsible for the present situation in north Belfast. I shall confine my remarks to that area, although,

from information received from other sources, I have no doubt that such allegations about the behaviour of this monolithic body would be applicable to the Province as a whole, but in particular to the urban areas.
North Belfast contains a wide spread of all religions and creeds, with a broad financial spectrum, which I have always endeavoured to represent faithfully and fairly. I am glad to say that this has been duly recognised by my constituents who have returned me once again to the House. In such representation, it is my duty to make sure that one section of the population is not being discriminated against in favour of another. In housing, this would be a just cause for consternation, leading to all kinds of accusations against the executive and particular individuals in it.
The area in which there is irrefutable evidence of imbalance in the provision of housing in both quality and quantity is in the Ardoyne. The Minister should look carefully at the disparity that is so glaringly obvious in this area. For some time, I have been trying for a commitment from the executive that it will do something to correct this imbalance between the Protestant and Catholic sections of the community. I have been told that extensive proposals are being formulated. This refers only to piecemeal and limited repair and renewal.
On the other hand, complete streets of houses in the Catholic Ardoyne are having rehabilitation programmes with new infill housing, together with large-scale environmental works. The quality of the work and of the materials used is of the highest order, expecially when compared to the standard pertaining to the adjoining area on the Protestant side, where strictly limited works are being done on individual houses.
To correct this unacceptable state of affairs would require funds to be made immediately available for the complete rehabilitation of the Protestant Glenbryn/ Alliance area under a housing action area scheme. I strongly suspect that the area has been allowed to decline in the hope that the people will be forced to leave, thereby creating further interface problems between the two communities, leading inexorably to continuing strife.
Another apparent discrimination arises in the provision of the auxiliary works to complement and secure new buildings. I am referring to small walls and gates to ensure privacy and security. It is not just the prerogative of the Catholic residents to have such facilities to protect them from the vandals and hooligans who take great delight in preying on defenceless people living on such estates. The Protestant people of the Old park, Crumlin and Shankill areas have as much right to estates completed to high standards as their Catholic counterparts.
I can name many other incidents where the Protestant communities have not been treated as fairly as their Catholic neighbours. Two spring readily to mind—the rehabilitation at Jaffa street and the broken promises on the Yarrow street, Rosewood street area, which has now been designated as a private investment priority area. The residents of Jaffa street, having suffered the trauma of' an enveloping scheme extending over years due to a mediocre builder working with cheap materials to a cheap specification, now have to suffer the indignity of not having the fronts of their houses completed with garden walls and railings, as promised. In the meantime, the broken stones that have been spread outside their doors


as a temporary measure are a natural lavatory for the dogs and cats in the neighbourhood, the products of which are inadvertently tramped into the house.
On making inquiries as to why that job has not been completed, I am fobbed off with the answer that although a scheme has been drawn up, it has not yet been approved, due to the cost consideration. When these unfortunate people, many of whom are elderly and infirm, see the wonderful, completed enveloped projects in the New Lodge enjoyed by the Catholic community, is it any wonder that they consider that they are being blatantly abused?
I am not, for one minute, criticising my Catholic constituents for being treated as they deserve in the matter of their housing needs, but as the Member representing Belfast, North I demand the same rights and privileges for the Protestant people in the matter of their pressing housing requirements.
With regard to Yarrow street and Rosewood street, I wish to expose the deceitful way in which promises given have been broken by the executive. It is another glaring example of discrimination against one section of the community. When the Lower Oldpark area was being redeveloped, it was stated that the area of Yarrow street and Rosewood street would be upgraded in conjunction with the adjoining new building so that the basically good brick terraced houses would be retained. During the tour of this area with the then Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), along with a Mr. Cameron, who has now been elevated to a higher position within the executive, it was again repeated to me that the scheme would progress as a matter of urgency. That was in 1984. Now I am informed that proposals will not be brought forward during the present financial year. However, most magnanimously, the executive assessed the needs during the private investment priority area review and will now bear in mind the views of the residents and their representatives on how this matter should be progressed. What unmitigated gall from a thoroughly discredited body.
I would now like to turn to another criticism that is causing public representatives serious concern in their relations with the executive. There is now a belief among unionist councillors that the executive has drawn so far away from the public it is supposed to serve that it is now incapable of responding in a constructive and sympathetic manner to the problems of tenants and home seekers. I note that there must be some form of recognition by the executive of its failure to respond to complaints from the public as it now appears that a complaints procedure will be set up to ensure that complaints are duly investigated. I suggest that before that procedure is established the causes within the executive, responsible for people's complaints should he investigated in depth. It should not be overlooked that such assurances given in the past to public representatives have, in reality, resulted in no improvement.
I have already stated that Belfast, North has the greatest population and proportion of elderly in the Province. Many of those senior citizens are living in completely unacceptable conditions and are not receiving the support to which they are entitled. I am concerned about the lack of provision in the matter of sheltered accommodation for this section of the population in

Belfast, North. The executive will say that levels of accommodation have been met, based on the criteria of 35 per 1,000. However, if the executive is basing that on its existing lists, it is naive in the extreme. Relatively few elderly people have completed registration forms. The vast majority of the elderly do not appear on any list, nor does there exist within the executive any means of identifying such elderly people with special needs.
There are many housing associations prepared to build for this deserving section of our population, but they are being stymied by the executive, which is again abrogating its responsibility in this respect.
There is also a serious problem with the glass-fronted room heaters that have been installed in houses for the elderly. These unfortunate people cannot manage the mechanism connected with these fires. All their lives they have been used to open fires, and in many cases they are treating these unsuitable appliances in the same way. Thus, they are exposing themselves to great danger in the process. Communication with the executive, with the tenants and the coal advisory service is just not working in the interests of those old people. The response to calls for repairs and inspection is much too long and in the meantime there is suffering and sometimes death because of the delay. There should be the alternative solid fuel option in the shape of the wrap round boiler open fire that also copes with smokeless fuels. There is a crying demand for that system from many executive tenants, particularly as it makes full central heating applications economical.
I am still concerned with the current selection scheme for main contractors for building and repair programmes for executive contracts. There are too many so-called builders being given contracts that they have not fulfilled. In spite of so-called controls to govern the employment of unscrupulous subcontractors, they are still flourishing to the detriment of the executive, its tenants and the housing stock.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Housing Executive falls down very badly with regard to the inspection of work done? The idea of inspecting one house in 10 under a contract leads to corruption because the contractor can take the inspector along to the one house that has been well done, while the other nine houses are not inspected.

Mr. Walker: I thank the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) for that. I am reliably informed that the inspection rate in Belfast is one in 20. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about inspections. It is a diabolical disgrace to see the way in which jobs are carried out in such a lousy way with respect to all types of housing and building repairs.
I was referring to the cowboys. Many of them are subcontractors. They employ people who are already drawing the dole, pay them deflated wages and pocket a 30 per cent. tax deduction. That illegal form of horse-trading precludes the employment of legitimate, self-employed and other workers who pay tax. As a prerequisite of the contract, the main contractor should be required to give lists of all those employed in any capacity on the site. Those lists would be rigorously checked against DHSS records. That would expose those unprincipled subcontractors, many of whom have chequered backgrounds in the building trade.
The Government should also strengthen the hand of the RUC through more covert operations in its efforts to


apprehend the perpetrators of the protection rackets operating on many executive housing sites. It is completely unrealistic to expect contractors to expose the parasites engaged in that illegal activity. Only through the persistent and diligent application of orthodox and unorthodox, methods by dedicated officers will that abhorrent practice be minimised.
I am still not at all happy at the low level of satisfaction with Housing Executive repairs. I have a constant stream of tenants to my constituency office complaining about a lack of attention and expressing complete dissatisfaction with all forms of repairs. Some time ago I advocated a tenant certification scheme for the approval of repairs. Such a scheme has been in operation on the mainland most successfully for many years. In a letter to me, the chairman of the executive refused to consider such a suggestion. When we consider that on average only one repair in 20 in Belfast is checked and when we consider the low level of satisfaction with repairs, it seems that anything that would improve such an unacceptable record should he considered seriously and would be to the benefit of all concerned.
The Housing Executive has proved to be a monumental failure in all aspects of housing management. The reports

from the public auditor every year reveal the results of that gross mismanagement for all to see. Millions of pounds of taxpayers' money that should have been used for the building and repairing of homes for the needy are carelessly or even criminally squandered. The whole structure of the Housing Executive requires to be fully investigated by an independent body so that it is made more amenable to what the public expect from an organisation which they had no part in setting up and in which they have no practical input. Its performance in comparison with the number of staff it employs is pathetic. We have heard of criticism of the old Belfast corporation and other local government housing bodies concerned with the provision and administration of housing, but they were streamlined and cost-effective because of accountability to the public and their record was commendable, compared to the operations in their place.
I hope that the Minister will make it his business to consider my accusations seriously in the interests of justice and fair play. The evidence is there for him to see, if he cares to look. I shall be happy to expand on any matter that needs clarification and, if necessary, will furnish his office with many other examples of unfair practices pursued within the Housing Executive.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: I protest at the introduction of Northern Ireland legislation by Order in Council. I do not want to take part in the debates on the other orders on the Order Paper. Under the appropriation order, reference is made in the vote for the Department of Economic Development to the training of labour and to the grants and assistance given to industrial firms. It is commendable that we should be trying to increase employment in Northern Ireland. What is being done to help those threatened by the Irish Republican Army, which prevents firms from carrying out work and threatens and prevents workers from working? Having worked in the construction industry, I realise the difficulties faced by those men.
In the past, workers were threatened and firms continued to work. Firms said to the workers, "If you wish to continue, your job is there for you." But when pressure was put on firms, the employers suddenly discovered that there was an awful threat to them and immediately pulled out of jobs. Perhaps security does not come under this appropriation order, but it is relevant to industry to consider whether the Northern Ireland Office is doing anything to prevent that, to encourage those workers and firms willing to do the job and take the risk and to assist workers to do the job if firms do not have the courage to take the risk.
I come to vote 5 for the Department of the Environment. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) referred to the Divis flats, which are to be demolished. He did not refer to the Rossville flats, which I understand are in the same position. Who made that decision? Was it made, as Mr. Barry claims, by the Anglo-Irish conference? Was it made by the Northern Ireland Office or, as someone else has claimed, by the Housing Executive? If it was made by the Housing Executive, that is a complete U-turn—if I may use a phrase that is not particularly welcome on the Conservative Benches—from what was said by the Housing Executive board and its officers—that they had decided not to demolish Divis flats. After the Anglo-Irish conference and the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, we suddenly discovered that the Divis flats and the Rossville flats are to be demolished. Mr. Barry announces it in Dublin, and says that he is claiming the credit because it was achieved through the Anglo-Irish conference. Perhaps, when he winds up the debate, the Minister will put on record who made that decision.
I disagree with what some hon. Members have said about Housing Executive grants. Perhaps I should not be disagreeing with other hon. Members, but I should point out that when grants are given by the executive, it is the responsibility of those who receive them to employ the contractor and to see that he carries out the work properly. It would be feasible to inspect about 10 per cent. to ensure that, at least in that percentage, the work was carried out according to specification.
In DED vote 8, there is a reference to an electricity subsidy. As is well known, proposals have been made providing for major changes to that industry. Northern Ireland's dependence on oil for electricity generation is also well known: in fact, it is 90 per cent. Because electricity cannot be stored, and because a balance must always be maintained between supply and demand, the

fuel used to generate that electricity is very important in economic terms. The Northern Ireland electricity system is the smallest non-interconnected service in Europe. A well-known reason for that is the loss of the interconnector between Northern Ireland and the Republic—which, I remind the Minister, has been out of commission since 1975.
On 15 November 1985, the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed, with its reference to peace, stability and security. In view of the supposedly greatly improved relations between Northern Ireland and the Republic, I wonder why the interconnector could not be protected from the IRA. Why has it not been reinstated? It seems, unfortunately, to fall into the same category as peace, stability and better security.
My party is not opposed to private enterprise where it provides proper, lasting jobs—not simply paper jobs—but each enterprise must be taken on its merits. When lignite was discovered at Crumlin, and was hailed as Northern Ireland's first natural resource—which is not strictly true; its people are its greatest natural resource—the view that cheap fuel was just around the corner was uppermost in everyone's mind. Since then, however, things have changed. There is a great debate about a lignite power station—about whether it should be situated in Crumlin, which incidentally would place it in my constituency, or in Ballymoney; and about whether we should wait to see whether a bit of competition in other ways would bring down the price.
It now seems that it would be more sensible to finish Kilroot No. 2 as soon as possible, which would give time for a reassessment of lignite and lignite potential as a means of working towards a satisfactory one third coal, one third oil, one third lignite formula for the generation of electricity in Northern Ireland.
It would also be sensible for the new lignite station to be built by private enterprise, but we contend that it should be run by Northern Ireland Electricity, which has increased its efficiency and productivity in the last 10 years and which has maintained a 99·9 per cent. reliability of supply, even though the system has two of the oldest, least efficient power stations in Belfast, West and Coolkeeragh.
Northern Ireland has few resources that it can call its own. When lignite is developed, we must ensure that its benefits, both financially and practically, stay in the Province to benefit its citizens rather than lining the pockets of speculators who may come in from outside.
Since I became a Member of this House, I have strenuously objected to the system of Orders in Council by which Northern Ireland is governed. I still feel the same as I did when I first entered the House in 1983.
I have referred to proposals that will be put to the House at a later date and to the way in which the electricity supply industry—which is so vital to Northern Ireland—will be dealt with by Orders in Council. My party's offer to give evidence to the Select Committee on Energy was not taken up. Instead, the Northern Ireland Office has chosen to bring forward orders which can go through in one and a half hours. That will be pointless, because we will be unable to amend those orders. In addition, we know that representatives of a foreign country, meeting with Her Majesty's Ministers behind closed doors in secret conclave, are in a far better position to influence decisions than the publicly elected representatives of Northern Ireland.
I do not intend to dignify that charade with any contribution whatever. I can only hope that the remarks made during the previous direct rule debate will lead to a change in this unacceptable position.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Honourable Members on both sides of the House have voiced their concern about the way in which Northern Ireland is legislated for.
I am aware that funds for security may come within the terms of the Consolidated Fund and that we cannot debate that subject tonight, but perhaps the Minister will tell us whether sufficient arrangements have been made to provide adequate funds for the prison service in Northern Ireland. For a time, the numbers in our prisons were reduced, and people were happy about that. However, I understand that there has been an upturn in the past few months and that, in addition, there are plans afoot to repatriate prisoners from the mainland to Northern Ireland. Have adequate funds been provided for that, and, if so, why cannot we in Northern Ireland have prison visits on public holidays or on Sundays—times that are more convenient for friends? On the mainland, visits are permitted at those times. If the funds come from the United Kingdom Consolidated Fund, why do not the same arrangements pertain?
Following the settlement arising out of the hunger strike, why has not adequate provision been made for those who wish to do work in the prison system to do so? Earlier tonight I spoke to some prison officers who were visiting the House. They gave me to understand that the answer normally given is that prison visiting arrangements are governed by prison officers' requirements, but that financial restrictions are the real cause. Unfortunately, the subject does not fall within this Vote. However, I ask the Minister whether the information is correct, because the question impinges upon how we are governed. If we were dealing with the United Kingdom Consolidated Fund instead of an Appropriation order for some of the Northern Ireland Departments, we could probe the matter more deeply.
Vote 5, under the heading "Department of Economic Development", refers to "services for the disabled". What does that mean? Is the care of the disabled being taken away from the social services? Is their training being taken away from the Department of Education and Science? What is going on? Many disabled people want to be trained to the utmost of their ability; they are not keen just to have services provided for them. They want to live, and many of them could live remarkably useful lives. I must put on record that many of us felt a sense of distaste recently when the Eastern board withdrew some payments from mentally handicapped people on training schemes because similar incentives were not given in other places. It was a classic case of robbing Peter to pay Peter, and I do not think that that was a proper way to allocate the funds. It was wrong to remove incentives and encouragement from such people.
I refer to Vote 1 under the heading "Department of the Environment". No doubt the Minister is aware that for many years people in the city of Belfast have been concerned about the state of at least 300 unadopted entries, for which no one will claim responsibility. Has not the time come to set aside the follies of the past and bring our city up to the standards of the present? Some of the

funds that seem to be lavished elsewhere could be used for the common good and spent on the basic sanitary provision of proper entries.
Many of my colleagues on both sides of the House have spoken about the Department of the Environment—in particular about Vote 2, which deals with housing services. I regret to report that some years back I wrote to the chairman of the Housing Executive, drawing attention to the lamentable work that was going on in the Dunluce-Ulsterville avenue area of my constituency, and the problem of the building contractor there. I was amazed to discover that his officials had told him that the contractor was a good contractor who had had no problems and that he was adequately insured. I asked why, if the work that he had done which had been drawn to the attention of the Housing Executive was not proper, he had been given contracts on the north side of Belfast. I have now discovered that not only did he not have proper insurance cover, but he has left the country.
The Housing Executive cannot claim that it was unaware of the position. It is galling to Members of Parliament who highlight such issues to be fobbed off with such answers.
I do not know how my right hon. and hon. Friends felt yesterday when they received a communication from the Housing Executive to the effect that, under the Data Protection Act 1984, hon. Members would have to provide evidence when we made queries that our constituents had asked us so to do. May we have some guidance on this? The order deals with records and with financing for computers. Does the rule apply to every Member in the Chamber? I am not sure that many of us believe in works of supererogation and not many of us are gluttons for punishment. I doubt whether any of us would raise issues that had not been brought to us by constituents. It is ludicrous that our time should be wasted and public money spent on such a letter.

Mr. John David Taylor: I join the hon. Gentleman in expressing my concern at the receipt of that letter this week from the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. It states that, in future, Northern Ireland Members cannot raise questions with the Housing Executive on behalf of their constituents unless we provide evidence that we have been requested so to do. That is to comply with the new computerised system that the Housing Executive is using. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this may be a breach of privilege by the chief executive of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive in trying to control the activities of Members of this House?

Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's observations. I leave it to others in the House to decide whether it is a breach of privilege. I suspect that it is very close. It also manifests some lunacy, because we know the problems that the Housing Executive encounters with the computer. Many people are told that their applications have not come up on the computer. If they are relying on the computer to stop Members from probing on behalf of their constituents, they are leaning on a bent stick.
Towards the end of last November and at the beginning of December, in the Lisburn road in south Belfast, there was a massive explosion outside an RUC station which demolished a considerable number of houses and wrought tremendous havoc. Six months later, much of the repair


work has still not been done. I congratulate the Housing Executive on the immediate work that it carried out, but I have not been impressed by the continuity of that work. The executive says that it is obliged only to weatherproof the houses. To me, that means keeping the water out. I have visited some of those homes, and six months later they are still not properly waterproofed.
There is another tragedy, especially for the elderly with limited savings who put their limited savings into the purchasing of property. I understand that there is accountability and that the Northern Ireland Office is sending assessors to carry out evaluations, but if they know the value of the work that is to be done, cannot there be intervention between cowboy builders and old-age pensioners who are under pressure to get their houses repaired and who do not know the values and the prices that are involved? At a later stage an assessor will tell a pensioner that only a certain sum is available, and quite often there is a shortfall of 50 per cent. Those who have only a pension on which to live are then left in dire straits. If the Northern Ireland Office's assessors know the value of the work that is to be carried out, they should be prescribing to the builders rather than to the residents, who have suffered enough.

Rev. William McCrea: On the point about the lack of proper tradesmen being employed by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, will my hon. Friend take it from me that in a town in my constituency it was discovered that, instead of tradesmen being employed on the improvement public buildings scheme, one man was employed on the Monday by a contractor as a plumber, to return on Tuesday as an electrician and on Wednesday as a joiner. On Thursday, he slipped down to the unemployment office to sign on the dole.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Clearly a Jack of all trades and product of private enterprise who should go places. Lest anyone should think that I have been unduly critical, I acknowledge that some fine work has been done by the Housing Executive. I have in mind, for example, St. George's gardens, which runs parallel to Great Victoria street. It is one of the finest developments that I have seen anywhere. I wait for another year to see what the development looks like when the paint begins to wear and the papering begins to show cracks before I comment on the structure. However, it is a delightful area that is pleasing to the eye, and I congratulate the executive on that piece of work.
I should like to know how the conservation area around Queen's happened to stop magically short of Queen' own plans for developing the area, which involves the demolition of some of the finest old houses in the area. The Royal Society of Ulster Architects has said that the houses in question are some of the finest of their type in the area and in the city. Why did the effect of the conservation order stop miraculously at a point that will allow the barbarians of the new red brick, if an old university person might use that term, to demolish some of the finest remains of historic architecture?
This afternoon I questioned the Secretary of State for Education and Science about the implementation of the ruling of the European Court. The effect of it is that people from the European Economic Community should be entitled to attend British universities and polytechnics at

the British taxpayers' expense. I do not know whether the Minister has seen the report in The Times of last Saturday that was headed "Irish invasion for free education." This is happening at a time when we have seen the curtailment of grants to people in the United Kingdom for education opportunities.
Perhaps this is an appropriate moment to raise a matter which has been a long-standing bone of contention not only for hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies but for others as well. I understand from a newspaper cutting that universities and colleges throughout Great Britain and Northern Ireland are bracing themselves for an invasion of Irish students. People have an entitlement, especially in universities, to move about. I do not question that, but I ask whether funds have been made available, or will, for example, the Belfast education and library board in my constituency have to curtail its budget to provide the necessary funds for such fee payments? An article in The Times stated that, for the academic year 1986–87, about 3,000 students took advantage of the opportunity to study in the United Kingdom.
I realise that the Minister is not in a position to answer directly for the Secretary of State for Education and Science, but can it be confirmed that the cost over three years may be as much as £5 million? I understand that, whereas there were 3,000 students in the past year, there are an estimated 5,000 for the coming year. Certainly, as I understand it, The Irish Times is planning a three-day conference in Dublin to help would-be students to familarise themselves with British application procedures. About 10,000 sixth formers have applied for places. Has the matter been discussed in the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference? What provision has been made for British students to have the same opportunities in the Republic of Ireland? Have we been aware that middle class people in Dublin know the good bargain that they are getting? They will pay reduced tuition fees, and the cost of living is much easier in the United Kingdom than it is in Dublin. How will that matter impinge upon our people?
I can understand colleges and universities in which there are plenty of vacancies because of financial restrictions that the House has imposed upon them trying to get help from other sources and get students in, but it seems absolutely ridiculous that, again, we are subsidising a country which obviously is having difficulty in financing its young people's education. It is a marvellous bargain at the expense of the British taxpayer. The average cost of fees in the Republic of Ireland is £1,500 compared with £550 in Britain.

Mr. William Ross: Is my hon. Friend aware of a court case of which, so far, only university students are taking advantage? From my reading of the case, it seems that there is a possibility that not only university students but students in secondary education could make the same claim and go across the border every day to schools in Northern Ireland or even live there and receive benefits.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I understand that that is a possibility. Certainly there can be movement without much difficulty if people so desire.
I do not wish to prolong the debate, and I wish to give the Minister an opportunity to respond. I shall raise one other specific point on education and then refer to health and social services.
I notice that Vote 1, Department of Education, is for £191,390,000 for schools,
excluding grants to education and library boards.
Vote 4 is for grants to education and library boards and is £142,770,000. Do those Votes draw a distinction between direct grants to direct grant schools, to maintained schools compared to controlled schools? Are they a portent of the continuing move towards privatisation in education by which the public sector is being cut, especially in inner Belfast?
In south-west Belfast there is a tragic situation. Plans were made to move the Kelvin secondary school to the Blythfield site. That would have left the Kelvin school site free for the development of facilities at the Royal Victoria hospital and would have allowed the provision of a new primary school to serve a new and growing community. Now, because of the attitude of one councillor and one principal, the board and the Department are hiding behind the statement that the people are divided and do not know what they want. However, that plan was made by previous Ministers in consultation with the people. Is it just a matter of curtailing public expenditure on the public schools and opening the way for the continuing provision of some schools that give a portion of the capital cost and get the rest from the state?
I have two questions about the Department of Health and Social Services, Vote 3. There is reference to expenditure on social security and similar services. Will this provide funds for the Shankill road social security office or will it he like a nomad encampment moving from pillar to post with resulting demoralisation of the staff and inadequate facilities for the people?
Is the Minister satisfied that people who wish to take up their entitlement to attendance and mobility allowances are treated properly? On too many occasions I have had to press for an appeal after people have been turned down for mobility allowances. Those people had to go through a year of agony until, finally, an appeal was granted. I urge that closer attention be paid to the methods of providing such mobility allowances. It seems that at times people who ought to have received them have been held back.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Viggers): Before I attempt to deal with the points raised in this long and interesting debate, I should like to impose on the House briefly to describe a significant report from my Department. It is the Pathfinder interim report on the theme "Building a Stronger Economy" which I launched this morning at a press conference in Belfast. This programme is fundamental to the economy and related directly to the way in which public funds in this Appropriation order and its successors, will be spent. The Pathfinder programme has analysed the strengths and weaknesses of the Northern Ireland economy and aims to light the way ahead to a stronger and more resilient future.
In approaching this task, my Department has asked itself some very basic questions about the nature of Northern Ireland's economic problems, and about its own approach to tackling them. In doing so, it has demonstrated a willingness to look critically at existing policies for stimulating economic development, to examine their effectiveness, and to judge whether a change of direction is necessary.
This process has identified a number of root causes of Northern Ireland's economic performance which in some ways has been poor. The document focuses on the need to look for changes in the way we do things. In some cases it will mean attempting to change attitudes. It sets out an agenda to raise the level of enterprise, improve competitiveness, and increase exporting by local industry. More fundamentally, it emphasises the active role that people in the Northern Ireland communuity can have in influencing their economic destiny, it invites their ideas, and seeks their commitment.
Briefly the programme identifies six areas of weakness. First, Northern Ireland has traditionally been a dependent economy, with company ownership and control being exercised from outside the Province. The entrepreneurial tradition is not strong. Secondly, products have frequently been uncompetitive in price, design or delivery. Thirdly, business men have concentrated on the Northern Ireland home market to the exclusion of exports. Fourthly, the large Civil Service sector has played little part in the direct field of exports. Fifthly, the substantial support to industry in Northern Ireland could lead to a business environment in which Government subsidy crowds out the better business judgments; and finally, we stress the importance of communication ensuring a business and customer input into the Government's own decision making.
If I concentrate this evening on weaknesses in the economy, it is because we are determined to learn from them and point the way to improvement. There are excellent companies in Northern Ireland, but more can be done.
I turn briefly to the wide range of points that have been raised by right hon. and hon. Members during the debate. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) included in his speech some praise for enterprise and initiative. He referred to a number of successful companies, and to tourism. He then went on to talk about the importance of the Lagan bank development in Northern Ireland. However, he then tempered that praise by saying that if he were a member of the Government, he was sure that his Government would do much the same. Indeed, he claimed some credit for Lagan bank, the origins of which date hack to 1978. If that is a development of concensus politics, we welcome it, and we welcome the hon. Gentleman's contribution to the debate. The hon. Gentleman referred also to recent statements by the chief officer of the Western education and library board about the condition of buildings in his area.
A wide range of points were raised by hon. Members about education and hospital issues. I must point out that education issues are primarily the responsibility of the education and library boards and that hospital and health issues are primarily the responsibility of the hospital boards. However, I have noted the points raised by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough and I shall arrange for the reply by my hon. Friend who is responsible for such matters to be sent to him.
Similarly, the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross), whom I see resuming his place, raised a point about nurses and the pressures and strains on them because of the long hours that they must work. We have noted the hon. Gentleman's points, especially in relation to the Altnagelvin hospital and we shall write to him on that subject.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East also raised the question of the application of rating reforms to Northern Ireland. The answer is that the proposals that are currently before England and Wales do not apply to Northern Ireland, but nonetheless we are closely following and monitoring the proposals in England and Wales and shall consider whether there are applications that will be appropriate to apply to Northern Ireland.
In a wide range of points, the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder), referred especially to hospital developments in North Down and the Ards peninsula. His points were of considerable detail. We noted them and again we shall write to the hon. Gentleman.
A point of substance was raised by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), who asked for progress on the proposals for equality of opportunity in employment, in which the Government believe strongly. The Government remain firmly committed to the promotion of the more effective practise of equality of opportunity in the Province. Responses to the consultative paper on this topic are being carefully analysed and consultations are taking place with key interest groups on the content of a revised guide to manpower policy and practice. The Government hope to issue the revised guide as soon as practicable and are considering the most appropriate way forward on the consultative paper in the light of the responses received.
The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) raised a point about the show of flags, especially at Shorts in Belfast. I do not want to comment on the situation at Shorts. It is for the management at Shorts to manage the company. However, we cannot walk away from that issue and, in the words of a press comment that I made on Saturday, I should like to repeat the Government's attitude.
The Government are committed to equality of opportunity in employment. That requires dedicated effort by management, trade unions and the community generally to ensure that scrupulously fair practices are followed. That includes ensuring that the workplace offers an environment in which no section of the community feels threatened or offended. However well intentioned the display of bunting and flags by one section of the community, that community must also try to see the same events through the eyes of the other community. They can offend.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Does the Minister believe that a photograph of Her Majesty or the flag of this nation take away from the neutrality of the work place?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. It is difficult to see how any of this arises under the Appropriation order.

Mr. Robinson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Why did you have to raise that point on my intervention and not when the Minister spoke about the matter?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was glad that the hon. Gentleman raised the matter. It gave me the opportunity, by implication, to reproach the Minister for having done so. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not going to challenge my ruling.

Mr. Viggers: I was seeking to respond to points made in the debate. I note your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely, terms of employment are in order under this legislation. The Minister was in order to deal with the matter, and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) was in order to ask about it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that he should not challenge a ruling from the Chair, I hope that he is not doing that.

Mr. Viggers: rose——

Rev. Ian Paisley: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already ruled on the point of order. I hope that we can proceed. It is late at night and we have spent a lot of time on these matters. I hope that we can get on.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I respect your ruling, but we are dealing with a matter relevant to Northern Ireland, whether it be 20 past 11 or not—that is an early hour for Northern Ireland orders. Is it in order for a Member representing a Northern Ireland constituency to raise a matter relevant to one of the votes in the order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have told the hon. Gentleman and the House that this matter does not arise under this order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not persist in challenging my ruling.

Mr. Viggers: There remain a considerable number of detailed mattes raised by hon. Members. I appreciate that they spoke with feeling about their constituencies. It would be unfair to select, from the wide number of points that still remain to be dealt with, a particular one or two. We shall note those points, particularly those that have not been dealt with in this brief winding-up speech. I commend the order to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 253, Noes 10.

Division No. 10]
[11.23 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Day, Stephen


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Devlin, Tim


Beith, A. J.
Dickens, Geoffrey


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Dorrell, Stephen


Bowis, John
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Brazier, Julian
Dover, Den


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Dunn, Bob


Buck, Sir Antony
Durant, Tony


Butler, Chris
Dykes, Hugh


Butterfill, John
Eggar, Tim


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Emery, Sir Peter


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Evennett, David


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Fallon, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Favell, Tony


Chope, Christopher
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Churchill, Mr
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Colvin, Michael
Forman, Nigel


Conway, Derek
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Forth, Eric


Cope, John
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Cran, James
Fox, Sir Marcus


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Franks, Cecil


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Freeman, Roger






French, Douglas
Knox, David


Gale, Roger
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Lang, Ian


Gill, Christopher
Latham, Michael


Glyn, Dr Alan
Lawrence, Ivan


Goodlad, Alastair
Lee, John (Pendle)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Gow, Ian
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Lilley, Peter


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Greenway, John (Rydale)
Lord, Michael


Gregory, Conal
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
McCrindle, Robert


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
MacGregor, John


Grist, Ian
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Ground, Patrick
Maclean, David


Grylls, Michael
McLoughlin, Patrick


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Major, Rt Hon John


Hanley, Jeremy
Mans, Keith


Hannam, John
Maples, John


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Marland, Paul


Harris, David
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Haselhurst, Alan
Mates, Michael


Hayes, Jerry
Maude, Hon Francis


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hayward, Robert
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Heddle, John
Mellor, David


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Miller, Hal


Hill, James
Mills, Iain


Hind, Kenneth
Miscampbell, Norman


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Holt, Richard
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Moate, Roger


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Morrison, Hon P (Chester)


Howells, Geraint
Moss, Malcolm


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Moynihan, Hon C.


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Neale, Gerrard


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Needham, Richard


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Nelson, Anthony


Irvine, Michael
Neubert, Michael


Jack, Michael
Newton, Tony


Janman, Timothy
Nicholls, Patrick


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Onslow, Cranley


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Oppenheim, Phillip


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Page, Richard


Key, Robert
Paice, James


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Patten, Chris (Bath)


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Pawsey, James


Kirkhope, Timothy
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Knapman, Roger
Porter, David (Waveney)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Portillo, Michael





Powell, William (Corby)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Price, Sir David
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Raffan, Keith
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Temple-Morris, Peter


Redwood, John
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Rhodes James, Robert
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Thorne, Neil


Riddick, Graham
Thornton, Malcolm


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Thurnham, Peter


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Tracey, Richard


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Tredinnick, David


Ryder, Richard
Trotter, Neville


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Twinn, Dr Ian


Sayeed, Jonathan
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Scott, Nicholas
Viggers, Peter


Shaw, David (Dover)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Walden, George


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wallace, James


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Waller, Gary


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Ward, John


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Warren, Kenneth


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Watts, John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wells, Bowen


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wheeler, John


Speed, Keith
Whitney, Ray


Speller, Tony
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)
Wiggin, Jerry


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wilshire, David


Squire, Robin
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stanbrook, Ivor
Winterton, Nicholas


Stanley, Rt Hon John
Wood, Timothy


Steen, Anthony
Woodcock, Mike


Stern, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)



Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Mr. David Lightbown and


Sumberg, David
Mr. Alan Howarth.


Summerson, Hugo





NOES


Beggs, Roy
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Kilfedder, James
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Maginnis, Ken



Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Tellers for the Noes:


Paisley, Rev Ian
Mr. William Ross and


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Rev. William McCrea.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 7th May, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

Northern Ireland (Electricity Supply)

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to say, on behalf of my colleagues, that we will not take any part in this debate as we do not agree with the way in which the orders are laid before Parliament. You have called attention to the lateness of the hour and the subject to be debated. On behalf of my hon. Friends on both sides of the House, I am making a protest, and accordingly we will take no part in the debate.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Viggers): I beg to move,
That the draft Electricity Supply (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 30 June, be approved.
This has been described as a most controversial draft order and the forerunner to privatisation of electricity in Great Britain. Those criticisms are utterly misconceived. It is nothing of the sort. The draft order works broadly on the lines of the Energy Act 1983 and permits the private generation of electricity in Northern Ireland in much the same way as that Act permits it for Great Britain. To that extent, the order should not be controversial. Nor, I hope, should it be opposed.
Another controversial issue—it was described as the only one by a number of people who made representations about it—is the obligation on Northern Ireland Electricity to buy electricity from a private generator. Following representations, that admittedly controversial point has been withdrawn, and is no longer in the draft order.
Of the gathering of the Federation of Unions Supplying Electricity, under the name FUSE, to fight the draft order and the alleged privatisation, yesterday's Belfast Telegraph said:
The Federation of Unions Supplying Electricity has welcomed changes in the draft order as a victory for their organisation.
FUSE secretary, Mr. Pat McCartan, said the removal of the proposal to direct NIE to purchase electricity from a private generator was 'exactly what we wanted.'
'We are naturally delighted that our representations to the Secretary of State and the Minister, Mr. Peter Viggers, have resulted in changes.
'It means that consumers in Northern Ireland will not get private electricity unless it is going to be cheaper.
'The legislation will be similar to Britain and FUSE has no reservations about NIE competing with the private sector on an equal basis.'
I believe that that removes the most controversial point from the draft order and it should therefore be welcomed by the House.
Right hon. and hon. Members may wish to raise another matter—the future of private power generation in Northern Ireland. It has been very difficult to ascertain the facts and the long-term price of coal and lignite. It has also been difficult to agree a form of contract, which is necessarily complicated with a private generator.
Decisions have not been made, but we hope that they will be made before long. It has not been possible to identify all the facts and complete all the contractual arrangements. We are listening to those who make representations to us, and I repeat that decisions have not been made. On the basis of what I have already said, and

on the basis that the draft order also contains a number of quite detailed points, most of which replicate and mirror the Energy Act 1983 that applies in Great Britain, I hope very much——

Mr. James Wallace: One of the criticisms made of the Energy Act 1983, especially in relation to the generation of electricity by wind generators, is that the buy-back arrangements by public utilities were not sufficiently generous to encourage private generation of electricity by wind generators. Does this order contain anything that will make people more likely to generate electricity privately?

Mr. Viggers: The order will enable private generation of electricity and NIE is already under a statutory obligation to acquire electricity at the most advantageous price from the point of view of the consumer. To that extent, the enablement of private generation will meet the point raised by the hon. Gentleman. That will be enabled in the draft order.
On the basis of what I have said and with the assurance that if detailed points are raised by right hon. and hon. Members I will do my best to answer those in my reply, I hope that in the circumstances this very brief introduction to the order will be acceptable to the House.

Mr. Peter Archer: The House embarked on this debate at 11.35 pm. Whatever the Minister might say to try to persuade us, this is the most controversial measure to be introduced into the House today. It is introduced on an unamendable order in a debate limited to an hour and a half. A number of right hon. and hon. Members earlier made clear their views about this. I do not always agree wholeheartedly with the interventions of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), but on this occasion he was absolutely right.
I want to begin by placing on record the view that this is not a responsible way for a democratic Government to behave. The procedure places everyone under an impossible pressure of time and it discourages some hon. Members from contributing. It offers no opportunity for discussions on detail. It manifests a contempt for Northern Ireland and for this House. And it strips away all pretence that the Government retain an open mind to the arguments. I fully understand that the Minister has tried to make amends by his very brief introduction. I do not criticise him for that. He was in difficulty and he did his best.

Mr. Viggers: With respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I was in no difficulty at all. I sensed that it was the mood of the House that this motion should he introduced very briefly. I could happily have spoken for 25 minutes to introduce the draft order. I can happily do that in my reply should that be required.

Mr. Archer: The problem when the House gets into this mood at this stage in the evening is that, even when one tries to be helpful and friendly, that is misconstrued. I was not suggesting that the Minister did not have a case. I have no doubt that if he wanted to speak for 25 minutes, he would have found something to say. I meant that he was in difficulty because the Government business managers had placed him in that position. I think that he was trying to be helpful.
However, it simply will not do for the Minister to say that this is not really a controversial measure but only an enabling order. We might have thought from what the Minister said that the matter was academic and that it is not a matter of what the Government are intending to do, but simply a way of passing the time. The Government are proposing to take certain steps in relation to the electricity industry in Northern Ireland and that is why they are seeking these powers. If they do not propose to use them, perhaps the Minister will say so now and will withdraw the order and we can all go home.
We know what the order is really about. It is about the Prime Minister's unshakeable conviction that nothing is really worth doing unless it produces a private profit. If the facts do not support that conclusion, so much the worse for the facts. I will try to be brief, but let us consider the facts. Everyone agrees that within the next decade there will be a need for an increased generating capacity in Northern Ireland. One of the reasons why the need has arisen is that the Government decided that it would be appropriate to close down the gas industry. There are other reasons and, in the medium term, we will need increased generating capacity in Northern Ireland.
Realistically, there are only two options for achieving that. As the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) said in an earlier debate, one is to complete phase two of the Kilroot power station, owned by Northern Ireland Electricity, with a choice of burning oil or coal, and the other is to construct a new power station, probably at Crumlin, burning lignite. It is true that, if the calculation begins from the time that the new station is commissioned, the costs of production are less if the lignite option is taken. But the capital cost of constructing the lignite station has been estimated at £400 million. At Kilroot, much of the infrastructure work has already been completed in phase one. Much of the plant and equipment was purchased at that time and it is accepted that the cost will be only about £150 million.
The Minister may have seen the detailed report by Professor Barooah and Mr. Smyth, two distinguished economists, who have considered the options, and their calculations of comparative costs. I have no doubt that the Secretary of State has not tried to follow the arithmetic—but we cannot all be numerate. Assuming interest at 10 per cent. on the capital costs, the total production costs for Kilroot would be 2·2p per kW hour while the comparable figure for a lignite-burning station would be 3·2p. If the Government's purpose is to encourage cheaper electricity, the advantage lies clearly with Kilroot 2. As the hon. Member for Antrim, South pointed out, there cannot be any comparison between the two.
That option would not mean turning our back on lignite. One day it may well be needed. But the exploration of lignite is still in its infancy, as is the research into its implications. An additional advantage of proceeding with the Kilroot option is that it spares us the necessity of being bounced into the construction at Crumlin before the other sites have been assessed and before the effects on the environment or wildlife have been considered.
Everyone now agrees that a vital element in energy policy is husbanding our resources. Kilroot 2 will offer an option at any given time whether to burn coal or oil. The station can use whichever is cheaper and it has the flexibility to switch from one to the other. There is no necessity to set out hell for leather using up all the stocks of lignite as quickly as they can be excavated and burnt.
Of course, we know what this is really about. The construction and operation of a lignite-burning station could be put out to private tender. It is the shortest route to privatisation of the electricity generating industry. One might have thought that, when dealing with an industry that is so basic to the economy, where the costs and the assurance of regular supplies are so important to the whole of manufacturing industry, there would be general agreement about the importance of keeping it under public control. After all, that is not some newly invented doctrine from the political Left. It was the conclusion of the McGowan commission for the whole of the United Kingdom back in 1935. It was accepted by successive Conservative Governments from 1951 to 1964. It was generally thought that it would no longer be a political issue. And in Northern Ireland, where we are discussing the construction of one power station, which will supply some 40 per cent. of the needs of the Province, one might have thought that, if the Government were coming to the House to provide a framework for privatisation, they would at least have explained how they proposed to reconcile that with consumers' needs.
Northern Ireland Electricity is under a statutory obligation to meet the needs of consumers. Presumably a customer could enforce that obligation against the board by bringing an action in the courts. But the Government propose that a substantial proportion of the generating capacity will not be under the board's control. The board may well have to buy from private generators what it needs to fulfil its obligations. As the Minister reminded us, the original edition of the order proposed to empower the Department to direct the board to buy from private sources. There would be no danger that private generators would be left with unused capacity. The loss on any spare capacity would be borne by the public. But, on reflection, even the Government saw that that revealed too clearly the political purpose behind the order. That was the first draft order—and they were proposing to knock the letter "r" out of "draft".
We give the Government due credit for having responded to the representations made by the trade unions. Very fairly, the trade unions have given them credit too. But the Government do not need power to direct the board: the board will have to buy in electricity from the private sector to meet its statutory obligations, if it has not the additional power itself. Those are statutory obligations that lie on the board, but are not imposed on private producers. Nothing in the order says that private producers must charge reasonable prices, or must not exploit their bargaining advantage. Indeed, there is nothing in the order about protecting consumers.
The Minister reminded us about the Energy Act 1983. It empowers boards in Great Britain to buy from private generators, but it imposes conditions about the effect on consumers. It says that the price to be paid to the private generators shall not be such as to increase the prices; charged to the customers of the board. There is no corresponding restriction on prices payable to private generators in this order. If they are in a position to hold the board to ransom, the board is in no position to resist exorbitant prices.
The original order the Electricity Supply (Northern Ireland) Order 1972—imposes on the board an obligation to act in a manner compatible with the best commercial practice. This order contains no comparable obligation on private speculators. There is no obligation


on them to place construction contracts, or any subcontracts, with United Kingdom companies, or so as to create the maximum number of jobs in the United Kingdom. Their concern will be to maximise their profits, and their sole obligation will be to their shareholders.
Another safeguard is conspicuously absent. If a private company can no longer produce electricity at a profit, it may go into liquidation, and the liquidator may repudiate its contracts. He is then under no duty except to pay the maximum dividend to the commercial creditors and then to the shareholders. The generating station will remain in existence, but no one will have the right to insist that it continues to meet the company's former contractual obligations to Northern Ireland Electricity, and the board may be faced with an obligation to consumers which it has no means of fulfilling. If that were a statutory obligation on private generators, that obligation would pass on to the liquidator, as it does, for example, in the case of the liquidator of a private water company. But no such obligation is to be found in the order. Indeed, there is no guarantee that the service will have any say in the arrangements under which private companies supply it. If we are to go by the present form, there is real doubt about the matter.
One of the contenders already negotiating for the fruits of the order is the Antrim Power Company Ltd. The company is insisting that its negotiations are conducted with the Department, and will not negotiate with the Northern Ireland electricity service, presumably because it hopes to obtain a deal from the Department to which the service would not agree.
If the service is left with no means of fulfilling its obligations, except to take power from the Antrim Power Company on such terms as it can then obtain, it may well find that its power to negotiate has gone. There will be only one supplier, which will have obtained that position by negotiating with the Department when the service was not even present.
None of this is an oversight by the Government; there are too many precedents in the legislation for even this Government to have overlooked them all. Clearly the Government have thought about the implications of what they are doing. They have thought carefully about how they can ensure so far as possible that every risk is borne by the public, and that every opportunity for profit lies with the private companies.
In article 5 of the order, the draftsman clearly considered possible circumstances in which the board may need to buy in electricity to meet its obligations, and the private company says, "We cannot generate additional electricity unless you help us to increase our capacity. We will sell you our electricity at a profit, but you must provide the capital, and you must bear the risk." So the public are empowered to make interest-free loans or outright grants. That is all in article 5. It cannot have any other purpose. Clearly the Government contemplate that the sums necessary to be invested should come from public sources, because in article 9 the service is given power to borrow money
in connection with any agreement or arrangement
which it makes with a private producer. In article 7, the Department—in effect, the Minister—is given power to acquire land "compulsorily" and make it available for a private generating station.
If the argument for private generation of electricity is that there should be competition, let the obligations of the private sector be comparable with those of the public. If the Government seek to extol the virtues of private risk capital, let private capital be genuinely at risk. But the Government want to create a game in which for one side only every ball counts as a no ball, and one can make runs without the risk of being out.
Of course the talk of competition is academic. None of this is about the real world. The Government clearly recognise that if industry and the private consumer are to be guaranteed a supply of electricity to meet their needs, plans for that supply must be made for periods of at least a quarter of a century, and the investments entailed in that kind of planning are not the investments that private speculators are prepared to undertake on a straight basis of shouldering the risk and competing on equal terms as to cost.
If consumers are to be guaranteed their supplies, and if the work force, with its experience and special skills, is to have a better prospect of job stability than colleagues in the gas industry, the community must ensure that the capital is available and take the necessary risks. The private speculators are prepared to let the community plough the fields, supply the fertilisers and plant the seed. and then to come along at harvest time and offer to help with the reaping on condition that they are allowed to take the crop.
The proposals for privatisation are not intended to provide a solution to any problem. There is no problem. They are irrelevant to the real issues about the future of generating electricity in Northern Ireland. They are about a mission on which the Government have embarked for wholly doctrinaire reasons, and the people of Northern Ireland are the first in the firing line.
The ultimate argument in this debate is the size of the payroll vote and the efficiency of the Government Whips. But we will be registering our protest on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland, and we hope that some hon. Members on the Government Benches will have the intellectual integrity to say that they are not just Lobby fodder and that they will not wear it either.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I shall not detain the House for long, but I wish to record the same two substantive objections that the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) has just registered.
The first goes back to our debate on the first order. Yet again, this is an example of a procedure that is entirely inappropriate. This order amends an earlier, long order passed in 1972. Clearly, it ought to be debatable in all its component parts. It contains a substantial number of articles—21 in all. It should be amendable and the subject of proper debate. Certainly, it should not be introduced at this time of night because the debate should last as long as is necessary.
I hope that this is further evidence of all the arguments for an urgent review of the procedures by which Northern Ireland business is conducted. The argument was made earlier when we discussed the constitutional issues. It has again been made in this debate, and it is important that during this Session the Government's very general commitment be converted into a specific commitment to


ensure that such legislation is considered properly via the Committee structure rather than subjected to this cursory treatment.
The other substantive objection is that the order is not nearly as innocent as the Minister made out. On the face of it, his announcement that the order does not have the compulsion that it had when originally drafted is correct. Whereas previously the Government would have had the power to direct the board in Northern Ireland to accept private generation of electricity regardless of the cost, that has been replaced and there is now an enabling provision. The Minister can say that that leaves entirely free the continued practice that governs the electricity services of Northern Ireland at present. But here is the hidden agenda of the Government in relation to the energy supply industry. Evidently, on the basis of the planning of the electricity supply industry in Northern Ireland, the Government will be able to interfere in the near future to ensure that private generation of electricity for profit becomes a substantial component part of electricity supply in Northern Ireland. If they start there, it is likely that, in this Parliament, the Government will want to do the same on the mainland.
Over the years, my hon. Friends and I have made clear our objections to the privatisation of the electricity supply industry—whether in Northern Ireland or elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The fact that that could be a result of the order is sufficient to make us highly suspicious and to register our objections by opposing it in the Lobby.
As the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West said, Kilroot 2 is the subject of work at the moment. It is undergoing conversion to coal. I am advised that the work could he completed by 1992. Kilroot 2 would meet the needs until the end of the 1990s, and that would allow at least two years to assess the present work on lignite power generation at Crumlin. Clearly, that is likely to be a private generation project, but there is no need—let alone tonight—to enable that private site to be developed when the Kilroot 2 site will have the necessary facility.
Another objection further along the line is that it is likely that the Government would give a private company a 30-year contract to supply electricity but without a statutory duty to supply it at agreed prices. If that company had between 20 and 40 per cent. of the total supply, it would be in a strong position to increase prices and influence the pricing structure of the industry in Northern Ireland. It would not be competitive. It would be a growing private monopoly. The argument that if there is to be a monopoly, it should operate in the public sector, in the public interest and with money recycled for the public benefit is as strong in Northern Ireland as it is anywhere else. The case for lignite is not proven; it has not been demonstrated that the prices would be lower and it is fairly obvious to the informed observer that the order, and the amendment that it would make to the substantive order, are intended to enable the Government to negotiate privatisation, not for reasons of energy efficiency but because of their policy on privatisation in the energy supply industry.
I hope that, even if the Government secure a majority tonight, they will realise that there is widespread opposition to any attempt to go further and privatise the energy supply industry in Northern Ireland. I hope that even if they have the power to do that, they will

nevertheless ensure that the energy supply industry remains in public hands, and for public profit, as the public have always asked.

Mr. Dave Nellist: The order opens the door for the Government to award a contract for a public power station in the north of Ireland to be constructed and operated by private operators. That would be the precursor for the introduction of similar initiatives on the mainland. It is not surprising that Northern Ireland is being used as a test-bed. In a number of instances over the past 15 to 20 years—particularly those involving the draconian limitation of civil liberties—Northern Ireland has been the test-bed. Crowd control, surveillance, snatch squads and the rest have appeared first in Northern Ireland and then on the mainland, from Grunwick to Wapping via south Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire. There is no difference between using the energy industry in Northern Ireland and using public order as a test-bed.
The Tories have been open about their intention to privatise electricity. That is why they rehabilitated the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson) and putt him in charge of the Department of Energy. This enabling legislation is a preface to selling off the British electricity supply industry, and especially the private operation of nuclear power stations. If there is one thing that is worse than publicly-owned and run nuclear power stations, it is privately owned and run nuclear power stations. The bottom line will be profit and the return on shareholders' investments.
Many organisations in the north of Ireland are vehemently opposed to the private building and operation of this 450 mW, lignite-fuelled electricity generating station. First and foremost, as has been mentioned by both opening speakers, the trade union movement is against it. The staff of Northern Ireland Electricity is totally united in determined opposition to the proposal, not just because a private operator would require a higher rate of return than the NIE is statutorily required to maintain, but because of what would flow from it: a worsening attack on the wages and conditions of those who worked in such a station, so that the higher rate of return could be maintained and electricity costs reduced. It is bound to come out of wages and reducing manning. That will happen especially if the management of the private power station is anything like the management of Abbey Meatpackers in the North of Ireland, which yesterday sacked all of its work force in a battle over their wages and conditions.
The Secretary of State is sitting here quietly tonight, but it was reported in the Electrical Review at the beginning of the year that he sees the profit incentive in such stations as increasing efficiency and cutting production costs. The unions in the industry see themselves as the main target of his attempt to cut production costs.
The Government cannot even count on bodies from which they would normally expect support, such as the Northern Ireland Economic Council, which was set up and run effectively as an arm of Government. It has five representatives from the CBI and the chambers of commerce, five representatives of the "great and good" in Northern Ireland and five from the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. Four or five weeks ago, it put out a press release saying that it


had concluded, through a consultants' study that it had organised, that there was nothing to do but to "reserve judgment" on the matter of a privately-operated power station, especially one that was lignite-fuelled.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) mentioned Professor Vanni Barooah and the study that he carried out for the University of Ulster. He did not have time to mention the fact that the study showed that the use of lignite would be more expensive at £79·5 million a year, compared with £49·9 million a year for the expanded Kilroot oil and coal-fired station. It would also cost about £400 million to build, compared with about £150 million for the development of Kilroot.
If all those people are against the private building and operation of that power station, who is in favour? One set of people who are in favour are the private consortia which have put in bids to build the station. Of course, it is pure coincidence that involved in those consortia are companies such as GEC Turbines, which happens to be headed by Jim Prior, a former right hon. Member of the House and a former Tory Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. It is just coincidence that firms such as Hanson Trust are involved. Last year Hanson Trust gave £50,000 to the Tory party. There is an old saying among working people, and probably other sections of society, "You scratch my back, and I will scratch yours."
Inherent in the applications and the considerations of these construction projects is that sort of smell—that sort of scratching of the back of those who have paid money to the Tory party in the past and who are now looking for their rewards. They hope to achieve those rewards in the same way as Unilever set itself up with British Gas, with fixed-price contracts over a long period. GEC entered into an agreement with the Central Electricity Generating Board to be the majority supplier of heavy switchgear on fixed-price, fixed-profit contracts.
According to those at the universities who drafted the contracts, the operation of private power stations would be based on a 30-year fixed-price contract with indexation. Public funding would lead to private profit from such a contract.
The order and the press release issued by the Northern Ireland Office knock on the head the suggestion that appeared in the draft document in January that in the north of Ireland statutory periods of notice would be reduced before disconnection. However, we on the mainland have discovered that the Tory promise to remove the reduction of statutory notice means nothing after privatisation has taken place. Following privatisation, British Gas has increased disconnections by 27 per cent., but over the same period there has been only a 1 per cent. increase in disconnections by the electricity supply industry. It should be understood that there are exactly the same statutory codes of conduct. It is clear that when privatisation takes place there follows the introduction of a far harder school of management with a different attitude from that adopted by the management of public services. The new management is a private profit-making machine whose responsibility lies only with shareholders and their dividend cheques. It is unfortunate that the order will not receive the full attention that some of us expected earlier.
There is an underlying assumption that an extra power station must be built in Northern Ireland. I have read the material that has been produced by the Northern Ireland Electricity Service, including graphs that project a 30 per cent. climb in peak demand over the next 13 years to the year 2000. It is estimated that by the end of that period there will be a deficit of 500 MW, hence the conclusion that a new power station is needed. That approach ignores the downturn and collapse of manufacturing industry in Northern Ireland that has taken place already, the realities of the next 12 to 18 months with the onset of another world recession and the way in which Northern Ireland, which is especially weak within the capitalist economies of western Europe, will be hit by it.
We have already seen a loss of 33 per cent. of manufacturing jobs in Northern Ireland over the past eight years. If we take the real unemployment figures, including youth training programme entrants and the older workers who no longer feature in the official figures. it is clear that about 170,000 people are chasing about 3,200 vacancies. The real rate of unemployment in the north is twice that of employment in manufacturing industry, which is 21 per cent. of the economy, and unemployment will worsen in the next two or three years.
According to the NIES and the Government, we should be talking about building an extra power station at a cost of £400 million instead of completing the half-built oil-coal-fired power station at a cost of £150 million. If the issue is confined to saving money, increasing efficiency and nothing to do with opening the door to private profits for the mates of the Tory party, why not complete the oil-coal-fired station at Kilroot instead of building a new lignite-powered station?
There are still battles to be fought and won in Northern Ireland by the trade union movement against the stalking horse or Trojan horse of privatisation of the electricity supply industry. The responsibility for such a campaign lies not only with the Northern Ireland Electricity Service unions, which have grouped together and declared total opposition to the private building and running of a power station, but with the entire leadership of the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. That must be the main vehicle for the defence of wages and conditions of workers and their families in the north. If it is to succeed in such a campaign, it will be well advised to set up its own political arm to give genuine political expression to the only unifying force in the divisive politics in Northern Ireland—the working class.

Mr. Viggers: It is difficult to argue with those who believe in the conspiracy theory of history, but I shall try.
I am aware that the future ownership of the electricity industry in Great Britain has recently become a matter of wide public debate. We as a party recognise the benefits of private enterprise and we are fully committed to privatisation of the industry in Great Britain. Hon. Members will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson) is taking the matter forward with all possible speed. The situation in Northern Ireland, however, is different. The draft order is not connected to Her Majesty's Government's new initiative in Great Britain, but rather has two purposes: to facilitate the private generation of electricity in Northern Ireland, broadly on the lines of the Energy Act 1983, and


to effect a number of amendments to the Electricity Supply (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, which have become necessary since that order was made.
As I explained recently to the House in a parliamentary answer, private generation of electricity offers many potential benefits for Northern Ireland. Among them are the possibility of cheaper electricity as a result of private sector efficiencies, the welcome boost that a new station would give to the construction industry and the economy in general, and the favourable impact which such a significant demonstration of confidence would have on Northern Ireland industry. However, no decision has been taken on the various future generation options, and I make it quite clear that our eventual decision will be made in the best interests of electricity consumers in Northern Ireland.
It is important, in formulating a future generation strategy for the Province, that we do not allow any artificial constraint to prevent us from achieving our aim of securing the cheapest possible electricity. Private generation is a real option, but present legislation in Northern Ireland prevents the generation and supply of electricity as a main business by any undertaking other than Northern Ireland Electricity. In facilitating the private generation of electricity in Northern Ireland, the draft order makes provision for such a contingency and brings Northern Ireland more into line with the situation in Great Britain.

Mr. Archer: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the Government have not taken any decisions about the matter, what is the purpose of introducing the order and seeking such powers at 16 minutes past 12 tonight?

Mr. Viggers: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate—even the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) appreciated this—this is enabling legislation. It enables NIE in Northern Ireland, in a similar way to the way in which CEGB was enabled in the Energy Act 1983, to buy private electricity and enables a private generator to supply electricity to the grid. Indeed, there are private generators—large industrial operations—in Northern Ireland. One that I can think of in particular is available to supply electricity to the grid. The enabling legislation will legitimise such an arrangement should it be possible to achieve it. That is why we want to bring Northern Ireland as much in line with Great Britain as the legislation applied to Great Britain in 1983.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman quite rightly said that there is nothing in the draft order covering the detailed arrangements about the supply of electricity to NIE by a private generator. This is, of course, because the detailed arrangements which might govern the purchase by Northern Ireland Electricity of electricity supplies from a private generator do not come within the scope of the draft order. In the event that Her Majesty's Government should give their consent to the construction of a private sector power station, such arrangements would be contained in a power purchase agreement between the two parties. That agreement would also contain appropriate provisions to ensure the continuity of electricity supplies to Northern Ireland Electricity.

Mr. Archer: Does the Under-Secretary of State think that such arrangements should be the business of the House? Should not the House have some control over them?

Mr. Viggers: It will be for the Government in Northern Ireland to assist in the negotiation of a contract, which would be a contract between the private generator and NIE. NIE has a range of statutory duties; they are, to acquire electricity at the most advantageous price, to supply electricity to consumers, and so on. The terms of that contract would protect individuals because of the statutory duty of NIE to buy on a commercial basis.
There has been little comment about the other detailed provisions in this draft order, but these too are important for the generation of electricity in Northern Ireland. That is because these detailed and modest measures also bring the legislation more into line with legislation in Great Britain. For the purpose of enabling private generation to take place in Northern Ireland and for the purposes of the other modest measures, I ask the House to approve the order.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 236, Noes 201.

Division No. 11]
[12.19


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Gower, Sir Raymond


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Greenway, John (Rydale)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gregory, Conal


Brazier, Julian
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Butler, Chris
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Butterfill, John
Grist, Ian


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Ground, Patrick


Chapman, Sydney
Grylls, Michael


Chope, Christopher
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Churchill, Mr
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hanley, Jeremy


Colvin, Michael
Hannam, John


Conway, Derek
Harris, David


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Haselhurst, Alan


Cope, John
Hayes, Jerry


Cran, James
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hayward, Robert


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Heddle, John


Day, Stephen
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Devlin, Tim
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Dickens, Geoffrey
Hill, James


Dorrell, Stephen
Hind, Kenneth


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Dover, Den
Holt, Richard


Dunn, Bob
Hordern, Sir Peter


Durant, Tony
Howard, Michael


Dykes, Hugh
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Eggar, Tim
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Evennett, David
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Fallon, Michael
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Favell, Tony
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Hunter, Andrew


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Irvine, Michael


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Jack, Michael


Forman, Nigel
Janman, Timothy


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Forth, Eric
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Franks, Cecil
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Freeman, Roger
Key, Robert


French, Douglas
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Gale, Roger
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Kirkhope, Timothy


Gill, Christopher
Knapman, Roger


Glyn, Dr Alan
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Goodlad, Alastair
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Knox, David


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Gow, Ian
Lang, Ian






Latham, Michael
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Lawrence, Ivan
Sayeed, Jonathan


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Scott, Nicholas


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lightbown, David
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lilley, Peter
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lord, Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


McCrindle, Robert
Skeet, Sir Trevor


MacGregor, John
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Maclean, David
Soames, Hon Nicholas


McLoughlin, Patrick
Speed, Keith


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Speller, Tony


Malins, Humfrey
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


Mans, Keith
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Maples, John
Squire, Robin


Marland, Paul
Stanbrook, Ivor


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Steen, Anthony


Maude, Hon Francis
Stern, Michael


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)


Mellor, David
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Sumberg, David


Miller, Hal
Summerson, Hugo


Mills, Iain
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Miscampbell, Norman
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Moate, Roger
Thorne, Neil


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Thornton, Malcolm


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Thurnham, Peter


Morrison, Hon P (Chester)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Moss, Malcolm
Tracey, Richard


Moynihan, Hon C.
Tredinnick, David


Neale, Gerrard
Trotter, Neville


Needham, Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nelson, Anthony
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Neubert, Michael
Viggers, Peter


Nicholls, Patrick
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)
Walden, George


Onslow, Cranley
Waller, Gary


Oppenheim, Phillip
Ward, John


Page, Richard
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Paice, James
Warren, Kenneth


Pawsey, James
Watts, John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wells, Bowen


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wheeler, John


Portillo, Michael
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Powell, William (Corby)
Wiggin, Jerry


Price, Sir David
Wilshire, David


Raffan, Keith
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Winterton, Nicholas


Redwood, John
Wood, Timothy


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Woodcock, Mike


Riddick, Graham
Yeo, Tim


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Roe, Mrs Marion



Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ryder, Richard
Mr. Alan Howarth and


Sackville, Hon Tom
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Allen, Graham
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)


Anderson, Donald
Bermingham, Gerald


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bidwell, Sydney


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Blair, Tony


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Boateng, Paul


Barron, Kevin
Boyes, Roland


Battle, John
Bradley, Keith


Beckett, Margaret
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Beggs, Roy
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)


Beith, A. J.
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Bell, Stuart
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)





Buchan, Norman
Lamond, James


Buckley, George
Leadbitter, Ted


Caborn, Richard
Leighton, Ron


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Lewis, Terry


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Litherland, Robert


Canavan, Dennis
Livingstone, Ken


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Loyden, Eddie


Clay, Bob
McAllion, John


Clelland, David
McAvoy, Tom


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McCartney, Ian


Cohen, Harry
McCrea, Rev William


Coleman, Donald
Macdonald, Calum


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
McFall, John


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
McGrady, E. K.


Corbyn, Jeremy
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Cox, Tom
McLeish, Henry


Crowther, Stan
McWilliam, John


Cryer, Bob
Madden, Max


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Maginnis, Ken


Dalyell, Tam
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Darling, Alastair
Marek, Dr John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Martin, Michael (Springburn)


Dewar, Donald
Martlew, Eric


Dobson, Frank
Meacher, Michael


Doran, Frank
Meale, Alan


Douglas, Dick
Michael, Alun


Dunnachie, James
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Fatchett, Derek
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Faulds, Andrew
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Fisher, Mark
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Flannery, Martin
Morgan, Rhodri


Flynn, Paul
Morley, Elliott


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)


Foster, Derek
Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie


Fraser, John
Mullin, Chris


Fyfe, Mrs Maria
Murphy, Paul


Galbraith, Samuel
Nellist. Dave


Galloway, George
O'Brien, William


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
O'Neill, Martin


George, Bruce
Paisley, Rev Ian


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Pike, Peter


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Prescott, John


Gordon, Ms Mildred
Primarolo, Ms Dawn


Gould, Bryan
Quin, Ms Joyce


Graham, Thomas
Randall, Stuart


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Redmond, Martin


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Reid, John


Grocott, Bruce
Richardson, Ms Jo


Hardy, Peter
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Robertson, George


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Robinson, Geoffrey


Heffer, Eric S.
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Henderson, Douglas
Rogers, Allan


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Holland, Stuart
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Home Robertson, John
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Hood, James
Sedgemore, Brian


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Sheerman, Barry


Hoyle, Doug
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Short, Clare


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Hume, John
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Ingram, Adam
Snape, Peter


Janner, Greville
Soley, Clive


John, Brynmor
Spearing, Nigel


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Steinberg, Gerald


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Stott, Roger


Kilfedder, James
Straw, Jack


Lambie, David
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)






Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Wilson, Brian


Turner, Dennis
Winnick, David


Vaz, Keith
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)
Worthington, Anthony


Wall, Pat
Wray, James


Wallace, James
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Walley, Ms Joan



Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Tellers for the Noes:


Wareing, Robert N.
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Williams, Rt Hon A. J.
Mr. Don Dixon.


Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Electricity Supply (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, which was laid before this House of 30th June, be approved.

Northern Ireland (Jury Trial)

The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): I beg to move,
That the draft Jury Trial (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 11th May, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
I draw to the attention of the House the fact that this is the second draft of the order to be laid before the House. The draft that was laid on 8 May was defective in that it did not give the commencement date of the order, and, on the advice of Counsel to the Chairman of Committees, the original draft was withdrawn, and a new draft, giving a commencement date of 1 August 1987, was laid on 11 May.
The effect of the draft order would be to remove personal injury and fatal accident actions from the list of cases for which a party may request trial by jury in the High Court of Northern Ireland. This change would bring Northern Ireland into line with England and Wales. At present, in Northern Ireland, either party to a personal injuries action in the High Court can request a trial with a jury of seven persons. Although the majority of cases are set down to be tried in this way, the vast majority are settled either at the door of the court, or in some cases in the course of the trial. Court records show that 95 per cent. of cases are tried without a jury ever becoming involved. In view of the fact that civil juries seldom become involved in trying cases, the then Lord Chancellor announced in November 1985 that he had decided to conduct a review into the desirability of changing the High Court practice. A total of 16 organisations were invited to make submissions.
Of the submissions received, 11 were in favour of the abolition of civil jury trials, and that included employers' organisations, representatives of the insurance industry, and the accountancy profession, the Automobile Association and, notably, the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland. Against this, three of the organisations invited to make representations opposed change. Those opposing change are the General Council of the Bar of Northern Ireland, the Law Society of Northern Ireland, and the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.
In January of this year, the then Lord Chancellor announced that, having carefully considered the views of the interested parties, he had concluded that there was no compelling reason why Northern Ireland should differ from England and Wales in the use of juries in personal injury actions.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Bearing in mind that the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying that Northern Ireland should be brought into line with England and Wales, may we have his assurance that this is not a step forward in changing the system for Scotland as well, and that civil jury trial will continue as a right under Scottish jurisdiction?

The Solicitor-General: The hon. and learned Member knows very well that I do not speak for Scotland. In consequence, I am not minded to be led down that road. However, I am glad to note that the hon. Gentleman is interested and perhaps shadowing the position that I do not hold.
There are three reasons for making the proposed change. They relate to court procedures, court resources and costs.
On court procedures, the Government are satisfied that the findings of the Pearson commission of 1978 hold equally good for Northern Ireland as they did for England and Wales. That commission reported that jury trials militate against consistency and predictability in the award of damages and inhibits settlements. It was found that jury trials are more expensive than trials by judge alone and tend to take longer to arrange and complete. Finally, the commission reported that the increasingly sophisticated rules on the assessment of damages which had been introduced in recent years also militated against the use of juries.
The Government are satisfied that all those factors point to the change that is now proposed. It cannot be realistic to argue that trial by judge alone in personal injury cases could produce any less just results for litigants than the present system. Indeed, we are convinced that the advantages to be gained in terms of consistency and predictability will make this reform worthwhile.
The second reason for bringing this measure before the House relates to court resources. Virtually every day of each legal term men and women give up their time to do jury service in the High Court in Northern Ireland. If they stood even a reasonable prospect of seeing the inside of a court room and of hearing a case tried it might be argued that such service is a worthwhile aspect of their civic responsibilities. It could then be put forward as one method of involving members of the public in the administration of justice. However, I must tell the House that the reality is vey different.
The vast majority of cases—some 95 per cent.—are settled by lawyers at or before reaching the door of the court. Most of the men and women summoned to do jury service are sent home without having heard an argument uttered by the counsel involved in the case they were meant to try.
In 1986, 3,420 people were summoned to the High Court in Belfast to do jury service. However, 3,019 of them were sent home without ever having tried a case. I am sure that those figures will interest the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile).
Although, in theory, civil cases in Northern Ireland involve trial by jury, in reality they are settled before they come before a jury. In 1986, of 2,742 cases dealt with in the Queen's Bench division of the High Court, only 43—just over 1½ per cent.—were fully tried by a jury. At the same time, it will be appreciated that the time taken up each morning with balloting and swearing in juries for cases that are never fought is an inexcusable waste of court resources. It is estimated that the proposed change before the House could save up to two judge days a week and would also free valuable court room accommodation. The Lord Chancellor is convinced that those resources could and should be more productively used in trying cases.
The third reason for bringing this measure before the House relates to the question of costs. By this I mean not only the legal cost incurred by the parties involved in High Court litigation, but also the hidden costs to the economy that result from the present system.
I have already mentioned that, in 1978, the Pearson commission reported that jury trials are more expensive

than trial by judge alone. That was borne out the following year by the findings of an inter-departmental working group made up of Northern Ireland Government Departments. It took evidence from a wide range of interest groups and established that employers' liability insurance costs—a matter of considerable interest to business people—were higher in Northern Ireland than in Great Britain. It found that those costs have a significant effect on the operating costs of firms, that awards granted under the jury system in Northern Ireland are higher than under the non-jury system in England and Wales, that legal costs form a higher proportion of the total costs of an award or settlement in Northern Ireland and that there is a greater delay in dealing with cases or achieving settlements in Northern Ireland.
Even those opposing this reform accept that the level of damages resulting from the present system is higher than in other parts of the United Kingdom. it is sought to justify this by pointing to the difficulty now experienced by persons involved in industrial accidents in re-entering the labour market in Northern Ireland. But the Government cannot accept as a matter of principle that the assessment of damages for factors such as pain and suffering and loss of amenity should in some crude sense be enlarged in Northern Ireland to take account of the economic climate. Indeed, it seems wrong in principle that an element of regional variation should come about in such an arbitrary manner, and in many ways it is counterproductive.
Another serious effect on the Northern Ireland economy arises from the present system. I have spoken of what I called the hidden costs to the economy which result from the present system. In its evidence to the review recently conducted by the Lord Chancellor, the CBI in Northern Ireland stated:
The use of civil juries in personal injury claims continue to create additional costs for employers throughout industry and commerce in Northern Ireland. The costs are substantially higher than those facing employers elsewhere in the United Kingdom and, of course, company closures have discouraged several companies from expanding and have prevented companies from setting up in Northern Ireland. The abolition of civil juries is essential to the viability of industry and commerce in Northern Ireland and would be a significant encouragement to future industrial investment in the Province.
That is what I mean by the hidden costs to the Northern Ireland economy which this reform seeks to redress.
The mechanics of the exercise are straightforward. The power to make the order is provided by section 62 of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978, subsection (1) of which lists five classes of action in which a party may request trial with a jury in the High Court. The effect of the draft order is to remove paragraph (e) from that list, that paragraph being concerned with personal injury and fatal accident actions.
Removing personal injury cases will leave four classes of action—libel, slander, malicious prosecution and false imprisonment—in which a party will still be able to request trial with a jury. This, as I said, will bring the law in Northern Ireland into line with that in England and Wales. There will still be power for the High Court to order trial with jury even in a personal injury case where it is considered that that would be more suitable. However, the majority of personal injury cases from now on will be tried by a judge sitting alone.
It is proposed to bring the order into force on 1 August this year so that it will be in place at the start of the new


legal year, in September. A corresponding amendment to the rules of the Supreme Court will make it clear that from the beginning of the new legal year trial by judge alone will be the mode of trial in personal injury cases.
The reform that is now proposed will be no leap in the dark for the administration of justice in Northern Ireland. The equivalent change was made in England and Wales more than 50 years ago. The civil law and the rules of civil procedure in the Province are in most respects similar, if not identical, to those in England and Wales. The change now proposed will remove one of the few differences of any significance between our two systems and will provide for even greater parity in the methods of dealing with civil claims in the two law districts.
This measure represents a desirable and long overdue reform. The benefit for litigants that should result from reduced legal costs and the expedition of trials and settlements are reason enough for bringing this order before the House.

Rev. Martin Smyth: It is regrettable that, as with nearly all Northern Ireland legislation, this important measure is being dealt with by the notorious Order in Council system at such a late hour. It is also regrettable that provisions affecting whole areas of life in Ulster—for example, such ancient and fundamental issues as jury trial and personal liberty—should be dealt with in a rubber-stamp way.
I appreciate that the issue with which the order deals has been under discussion for some years, and prior to the signing of the Hillsborough agreement. I assume that, because the Government have brought this measure forward, the Irish Republic has been consulted through the Intergovernmental Conference. Has there been such consultation? I understand from a parliamentary answer that I received last week that the cost of that exercise to the British taxpayer is about £313,000. Are we to take it that the Republic will put its legal system in order? I know of a civil litigation case which has taken four years to come to court. One can imagine the costs involved when hearings are deferred.
Although I am speaking to the order, I must protest about it as it is, once again, a matter of take it or leave it. The Solicitor-General told us that representations have been made by varous sources. I am aware that the Trades Union Congress has been in touch. Two and a half to three years ago, I asked it to spell out its objections more specifically, but I still await a reply.
The Confederation of British Industry and the Northern Ireland Bar are interested parties. One of the Bar's comments is that the jury system of trial will disappear if the order goes through. I do not agree. I would prefer a better system for trying non-civil cases and the eventual return of the jury system for such cases.
The order is to be operative from 1 August to take effect when the new term starts in September. What will happen in cases that are already pending and which have opted for jury trial? Are they not entitled to continue with that system after September? I am not au fait with all aspects of the legal system, but it seems only right that people who have opted for jury trial and who have not delayed through any fault of their own should have a jury trial. I am not referring to cases that come up henceforth or from 1 August.
The main demand for change has come from providers of insurance, who contend that excessive damages claims force up premiums. I am anxious that the Bar and the insurance world should realise that nobody wants to do them out of a living, but the victims of accidents must get fair compensation. Compensation should be neither excessive nor penny-pinching.
A member of my congregation was murdered in the Donegal street bomb explosion and his widow was awarded the princely sum of £1,500. When she queried the figure, her own solicitor responded, "You do not have to feed him any more." The sum was increased, but I am not convinced that the legal profession has always done an excellent job of defending people's rights. Thanks to representations to the Northern Ireland Office, we have had reviews of some cases. There is a responsibility upon the courts to be fair, and I trust that they may be so.
It may benefit the House if I put on record an example of the differences in insurance premiums provided for me by members of the insurance industry in Northern Ireland. The example is simple. It relates to a group 1 car—for example, a Vauxhall Nova, a Metro or a Mini. For a driver of 40 years of age seeking comprehensive insurance, the cost of cover in Cornwall would be £230, in inner London £413 and in Ulster £445. For third party insurance only, that man would have to pay £93 in Cornwall, £168 in inner London and £180 in Ulster.
If this order becomes law, I hope that the insurance companies which have claimed that they have to charge higher premiums because of the method of dealing, with such claims, will show good faith and drastically reduce insurance charges in Northern Ireland. At the same time, if the order is passed, I hope that the companies that have said that premiums are putting them out of business will make their goods more competitive and bring business to Northern Ireland.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: I welcome the Solicitor-General back to legal affairs debates and to his enhanced responsibilities. I also welcome him to the late night shift, which is a feature of the workload of junior legal affairs spokesmen for the Government and the Opposition. Perhaps that is something that his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General did not tell him about before he took the job. I welcome the Solicitor-General to these late night trysts and look forward to many more. May I also congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman on having gained the title that accompanies his office. We Socialists are not moved by such things, of course. However, I would understand if the hon. and learned Gentleman felt that "Sir Nicholas" had a nice ring to it. I can certainly see how that could be so.
The matters under discussion are important, and no less so because we are discussing them late at night. The order, if passed, will remove personal injury and death claims from the list of actions that may be tried with a jury. That has been the case in England and Wales since 1933, as the Solicitor-General explained. There is no serious lobby in England and Wales for the reintroduction of jury trials in personal injury cases. The matter that we are considering tonight is the change in the Northern Ireland context. The Government must prove the case for change for Northern Ireland. That change must be shown, because successive


Governments of different political persuasions have acquiesced in the present state of affairs from 1933 until the present day.
The case that the Solicitor-General has made is threefold. First, he argued that court costs are higher, and the legal costs that accompany those costs are higher, in Northern Ireland than in the rest of the United Kingdom. Secondly, he said that industry's costs—especially for employers' liability insurance—are higher in the Province. Finally, he said that the awards granted by juries in the Province are higher than those obtained in the rest of the country.
The Solicitor-General rightly made the point that 97 per cent. of all cases are settled before they reach court. That is the Northern Ireland figure and also the figure for the nation as a whole. The difference lies in the expense in getting juries together prior to trail and then having to dismiss them without their having heard a case. I fully accept that speeches made by members of the Bar to juries take much longer than speeches on the same subject made to judges. I accept that substantial extra expense may be involved there.
I understand, but am less sympathetic to, the point about industry's costs. I understand that the system means that those costs are higher in Northern Ireland, but it would be wrong to save money for the industrialist and do an injustice to the working people in Ulster. I could not support that. I do not think that the argument about industry's costs stands on its own.
The Government argue that in Northern Ireland juries make higher awards than a judge would. It is possible to argue that this reflects the Northern Ireland context and is not the effect of a jury rather than a judge making the decision. But I suspect that that is not what is happening. The reality is that juries are perhaps more generous than a judge would he in specific cases. Industrial deafness is a good example. I understand that a jury drawn from east Belfast, a shipbuilding community, could make a settlement in an industrial deafness case that was more generous and sympathetic than that made by a judge, who was perhaps, drawn from the English upper classes and whose knowledge of the shipbuilding industry was not as deep as the jury's. Had Tyneside local juries had the chance to vote on quantum in industrial deafness cases, their awards would certainly have been more generous to the shipbuilding community on Tyneside than the pathetically low amounts awarded in the series of benchmark cases heard about four years ago which set the going rate.
I cannot accept that the jury drawn from the local community is held to be too generous in such cases and that the judge is held to be too mean. I hope that the Government accept—although I suspect from what the Solicitor-General said that they will not—that damages, which the Government hope to reduce by their cost-saving measures, will be exempt. I know that there are savings to be made in trial costs and employers' costs and I can understand the Government seeking savings there, but I would be sad if the order resulted in a reduction in the amount of money given to an injured industrial worker in Northern Ireland. I would rather we preserved, even as an anomaly, the higher level of award in the Province. It would be possible for the Government to do that if they wished. The Province misses out in some respects, with a

higher unemployment rate, more bad housing and a narrower industrial base than the rest of the country. The Government are not moving to bring those aspects into line with the rest of the country, so why should Northern Ireland not have higher personal injury settlements? If the other anomalies can stay, why not have this one?
I plead with the Government to be generous to the Province. What steps did they take to engage feeling in Northern Ireland before bringing forward this measure? The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) said that the consultations had not been as extensive or thorough as one might have liked. I urge the Government to ensure that, in as far as they can, they are carrying the community with them in introducing this change. I know that the Solicitor-General will respond to that point.
It has been argued that trial by jury in personal injury cases is valuable in the Northern Ireland context because it is a substitute for not having trial by jury in criminal cases. I completely reject that argument. I was pleased that the hon. Member for Belfast, South said this as well, and I wholly accept his arguments. The two matters are separate. The arguments about trial by jury in criminal cases stand on their own, and to suggest that the lack of that civil right can be made up for by having trial by jury in personal injury cases is nonsensical.
With those two caveats, to which I should like the Solicitor-General to respond, I am, if not happy, at least willing to acquiesce to the order.

1 am

Mr. Alex Carlile: I join in the welcome to the new Solicitor-General, and congratulate him on his appointment.
Those who have from time to time practised in the mud of trading standards law have long known how distinguished a practitioner the hon. and learned Gentleman is. Indeed, in one very important case in which he appeared, the House of Lords sought to define what it described—if my memory serves me right—as the eyes and ears of a company. Henceforth we shall regard the hon. and learned Gentleman, with his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, as the eyes and ears of the Government on legal issues, and I am sure that he will fulfil that role with distinction.
No doubt all hon. Members start by accepting the proposition that the jury system is the bulwark of our common law system of justice. Yet in England and Wales, we have done without jury trials in personal injuries for, I believe, 54 years. Despite that, and despite changes that have been made by Governments of different complexions over the past 20 years, and despite the changes proposed in the second version of the Criminal Justice Bill, it would be wrong to suggest that the integrity of the jury system in England and Wales is in any sense under threat. However, the advent of the Diplock courts in Northern Ireland has meant that the integrity of the jury system there has been threatened. In criminal cases, we know not when it will be possible—for I accept that it was a necessary change—to restore the jury system in full. That means that the public in Northern Ireland have less opportunity to serve on juries than the public in England and Wales.
I hope that we all share the aim of restoring the jury system to criminal cases in Northern Ireland in due course, and that the hon. and learned Gentleman will confirm that that is the Government's aim as well as that of Opposition


Members. But if it is to be restored to criminal cases in Northern Ireland—in my view, there is a connection between the two issues—it must be a credible system. There must be evidence that it works in the Northern Ireland context.
The jury system in personal injury cases in Northern Ireland does work. It shows no evidence of sectarian problems, it is consistent and it is recognised by the public on both sides of the sectarian divide as an acceptable part of the Northern Ireland judicial system. It is clearly in the public interest that whatever there is of the jury system in Northern Ireland should be maintained.
That view is certainly shared by some unionists. I have in my possession a letter from the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) to a leading Queen's Counsel in Northern Ireland, in which he says of the case put forward by the Northern Ireland Bar:
I am certainly sympathetic to the case which you have put forward and will do all I can within the parameters of the Unionist protest to express your views.
Some criticism has been made of the level of damages awarded by juries in Northern Ireland, but that criticism is based on the assumption that if the trial and assessment of damages in personal injuries cases is handed from juries to the judges, there will suddenly be a drop in the level of damages. Personally, I do not believe that to be the case. I do not believe for a moment that the judges in Northern Ireland will turn hack the clock with regard to damages. Many of us recognise by now that the level of damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity in the courts of England and Wales is very low compared with awards in other jurisdictions.
It is said that there will be a saving of costs, but where will such saving take place? There may be a small saving to employers whose employees are called to serve on juries for civil cases, but let us not forget that the economic burden on employers in Northern Ireland is mitigated by the fact that the Diplock courts exist and that far fewer people are called to serve on juries in criminal cases.
It is said that there will be shorter speeches by counsel, but the Solicitor-General should hearken back to some of his more difficult days in court—no doubt in tricky and complicated quantum cases. Juries do not interrupt. Judges do, and frequently. I suspect and suggest that if one analyses the time it takes to address the jury on quantum in a complex case and the time it takes to address the judge, who will interrupt, there is probably very little to choose between the two.
The Solicitor-General has said that the saving will be two judge days a week. If my mental arithmetic is right, it means that by removing juries from the civil jurisdiction in personal injuries cases we shall save approximately half a judge's salary a year. Is it really worth £20,000 or £25,000 a year to remove the right to jury trial, which is valued in Northern Ireland, in personal injuries cases?
It is said, "Well, of course, the Northern Ireland Bar, the Northern Ireland solicitors, the Northern Ireland Law Society and the trade unions which back personal injury action by plaintiffs would object to this order." But is that a fair criticism? The lawyers who appear in these cases in Northern Ireland surely occupy a position that is worthy of greater respect than simply brushing them aside on the basis that they are seeking to protect their own selfish interests.
Let us not forget that being a practising barrister in Northern Ireland is not an easy job. It is much more

difficult than the same work in England and Wales, because it is fraught with personal risk. Those lawyers who are members of the Northern Ireland Bar base their opinion not upon the fact that they might earn a few extra guineas from taking cases before juries—I doubt whether there is any justification for that proposition—but on the fact that they not only work in the system and observe it but also live in the community, and they do so on both sides of the sectarian division which unfortunately exists in that community.
I ask the Solicitor-General and the Government to attend rather more closely than I suggest they have to the views that have been put forward by those experienced people who form the Northern Ireland Bar and Northern Ireland Law Society.
Indeed, in its submissions—which I am sure the Solicitor-General will have seen—the Northern Ireland Bar says that civil juries in Northern Ireland are an all-too-rare and successful social structure that transcends the cultural, political, social and religious bias that has characterised many troubled years.
It is not just the profession that is being ignored. I remind the Government that, as recently as 1970, the MacDermott committee conducted a detailed inquiry in civil procedure in Northern Ireland. In particular, the Committee examined the use of juries in civil cases, and recommended that they be retained. It is wrong to leap to the conclusion that civil juries should be abolished, bearing in mind that the MacDermott review was so recent. We should bear in mind, too, that as recently as September 1986, new Supreme Court rules were introduced in Northern Ireland. Among other things, those rules attempt to make the civil procedure in Northern Ireland speedier and more efficient. If we insist upon pushing the order through at this stage, we shall not be giving those rules a fair chance to show that they work.
The Northern Ireland Bar eloquently summarised the position. It said:
The abolition of juries in personal injury cases in Northern Ireland may well diminish and endanger public trust in, and respect for the legal system.
If ever there was a part of the United Kingdom where that trust and respect need to be maintained it is Northern Ireland, and the abolition of juries is no way in which to achieve that aim.

The Solicitor-General: First, I shall reply to the points made by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). I hope that I shall comfort him a little in relation to the technicalities of this Order in Council. He may be pleased to hear that it is not an Order in Council under the Northern Ireland Act 1974; it is a perfectly ordinary order under the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978. It is an ordinary subordinate instrument being dealt with under the affirmative resolution procedure. Therefore, we are following the normal procedures of the House, not the procedures to which the hon. Gentleman objects.
I thank the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) for their kind words of welcome to me. They made a point on behalf of the Bar of Northern Ireland. I have the honour now to be called to and within the Bar of Northern Ireland, and I certainly do not dismiss lightly the points put by its members, who have a deep knowledge of their community. We have thought most


carefully about those points, and I would be the last to say that they were put forward on grounds of self interest. Indeed, I would wholly repudiate any such suggestion. On the other hand, it is important to say firmly that whereas the effect of the order will be to abolish the use of the jury in almost all cases of personal injury, the use of the jury in Crown court criminal cases is working far more widely and, in many respects, better than many people—even in Northern Ireland—recognise. These brief statistics are illuminating. In 1986, no fewer than 75 per cent. of cases dealt with in the Crown courts in Northern Ireland involved non-scheduled offences triable by judge and jury. In other words, they did not involve the Diplock courts. A total of 1,325 cases was dealt with, of which only 329—less than 30 per cent.—were scheduled cases. If one takes into account the number of scheduled offences in which the defendant pleaded guilty, which was 264, it is clear that non-jury trials accounted for only just under 5 per cent. of the total number of Crown court cases dealt with.
Recently, I had the pleasure and privilege of witnessing the ordinary jury system working well in Northern Ireland. Despite the great difficulties, which we all recognise and regret, those statistics are a measure of the way in which Northern Ireland still manages to carry on an excellent Crown court system with judge and jury in a way that we would all applaud.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South asked about those who have already opted for trial by jury under the present system. We have considered the matter carefully. This is a procedural matter. There is no vested right to trial by jury, and it will be dealt with by rules of court. After the new term, which in Northern Ireland begins in September, everyone will be tried under the new rules. But it is purely a procedural matter, and they are not being deprived of a vested right.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and the hon. Member for Belfast, South asked about the level of damages. I agree with all hon. Members that levels of damages are not a matter for Governments of any complexion. They are matters for the courts, and they will be decided by the judges of Northern Ireland, and the judges alone. Those judges live in and will understand the community, and we must wait to see how much they regard as the proper level of damages.
I have great sympathy with the points made by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East. In the unlikely event that I become a judge, I should be able to say that I worked on the Tyne and even went into a double-bottomed tank on one occasion. The hon. Gentleman, as a trade union official, has a deep knowledge of that matter and a deep interest in the proper level of damages for industrial deafness and all other forms of injury. That will be a matter for the judges; the Government cannot and should not control it.
The costs of trial and of court procedures under the present system and considerable. I gave the figures. From a total of about 3,400 jurors called to court, about 3,000 did not try a case at all, although they had gone to considerable expense and inconvenience.
The MacDermott committee was mentioned. Because of the high regard in which Lord MacDermott is held in the Province and here, I took the trouble to look up the

report to see why it recommended the continuation of jury trial. I was pleased to note that the only reason that it put forward—I do not dismiss it—was that the ordinary juror well understood the proper level of damages, but no other reason was given. It is more than 50 years since we changed the system for England and Wales and, having considered the matter carefully, we believe that it is proper to introduce the change in the Province. Therefore, I commend the order to the House.

Question put:

The House divided: Ayes 146, Noes 13.

Division No. 12]
[1.18 am


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Kirkhope, Timothy


Brazier, Julian
Knapman, Roger


Butler, Chris
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Butterfill, John
Latham, Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lawrence, Ivan


Chapman, Sydney
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Chope, Christopher
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Conway, Derek
Lilley, Peter


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Cope, John
Lord, Michael


Cran, James
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Currie, Mrs Edwina
MacGregor, John


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Maclean, David


Davis, David (Boothferry)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Day, Stephen
Mans, Keith


Devlin, Tim
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Dorrell, Stephen
Maude, Hon Francis


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Dover, Den
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Durant, Tony
Mills, Iain


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Fallon, Michael
Moss, Malcolm


Favell, Tony
Moynihan, Hon C.


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Nelson, Anthony


Forman, Nigel
Neubert, Michael


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Forth, Eric
Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Page, Richard


Fox, Sir Marcus
Paice, James


Freeman, Roger
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


French, Douglas
Porter, David (Waveney)


Gale, Roger
Portillo, Michael


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Powell, William (Corby)


Gill, Christopher
Raffan, Keith


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Redwood, John


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Gow, Ian
Riddick, Graham


Gower, Sir Raymond
Roe, Mrs Marion


Greenway, John (Rydale)
Rowe, Andrew


Gregory, Conal
Ryder, Richard


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Sackville, Hon Tom


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Grist, Ian
Scott, Nicholas


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hanley, Jeremy
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Harris, David
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


Hayes, Jerry
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hayward, Robert
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Heddle, John
Stern, Michael


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Hind, Kenneth
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Sumberg, David


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Summerson, Hugo


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Irvine, Michael
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Jack, Michael
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Janman, Timothy
Thorne, Neil


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Thurnham, Peter


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Tracey, Richard


Key, Robert
Tredinnick, David






Twinn, Dr Ian
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Viggers, Peter
Wilshire, David


Waddington, Rt Hon David
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Waldegrave, Hon William
Winterton, Nicholas


Walden, George
Wood, Timothy


Waller, Gary
Yeo, Tim


Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Warren. Kenneth



Watts, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wells, Bowen
Mr. David Lightbown and


Wheeler, John
Mr. Alan Howarth.




NOES


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Hume, John
Wallace, James


Kilfedder, James



Maginnis, Ken
Tellers for the Noes:


Mallon, Seamus
Mr. William Ross and


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Rev. William McCrea.


Paisley, Rev Ian

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Jury Trial (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 11th May, in the last Session of Parliament, he approved.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, at tomorrow's sitting, the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Channon relating to the Channel Tunnel Bill may be proceeded with. though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock or for one and a half hours after the first of them has been entered upon, whichever is the later, and if proceedings thereon have not been disposed of by that hour, Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Questions necessary to dispose of them.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Objection taken.

Birtenshaw Farm, Bolton

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this I louse do now adjourn—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

Mr. Peter Thurnham: I welcome my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to her maiden Adjournment debate and apologise for keeping hon. Members up at this late hour. However, we are debating an issue that is of great importance to my constituents. I should be interested to know if my hon. Friend's Department has yet received anything like the many hundreds of letters that I have received in the last few years on this issue.
In July 1985 many of my constituents were most dismayed to learn of the decision of the then Secretary of State for the Environment to grant outline planning permission for 475 houses on 35 acres of land at Birtenshaw farm. This decision went against the recommendations of the planning inspector, the council, the elected representatives, the local residents' committee and the many other parties who had objected at the public inquiry.
My predecessor, Sir Charles Fletcher-Cooke, QC, had objected strongly to the land not being included in the green belt. I supported the objections of councillors to the proposed development, and had made these objections known to the council, the planning inspector, the then Secretary of State and to the other Ministers in the Department of the Environment. Indeed, Councillor Poulsom and I visited the then planning Minister in June 1984 to advise him on the great sensitivity of this site, which was the subject of one of a number of planning applications in the area.
The then planning Minister wrote to assure me that my objections would be carefully considered, and that he would notify me of his decision. It was unfortunate that when he did come to a decision which was to cause so much anguish to so many of my constituents he failed to notify me owing to what was said to be an oversight in his Department.
To understand people's feelings on this issue, my hon. Friend should appreciate the history. The land itself had been owned by the Ashworth family for many generations. On 12 July 1934, the Ashworth family entered into an agreement with the local council, Turton urban district council, to preserve the land as private open space for the benefit and amenity of the area.
In his report, the planning inspector said that the land is
unique in the area in that it provides the only significant relief from the urban development stretching northwards from Bolton … Moreover, it enhances the still semi-rural character and appearance of the area".
He said:
the proposed development would make Bradshaw and Bromley Cross very much less pleasant places in which to live".
How can the Secretary of State differ from this conclusion when he has not even visited the site, which many regard as a local beauty spot? Further objections to the development were based on the very serious traffic congestion, the lack of school capacity, inadequate drainage, and Bolton council's calculations of existing land availability.
Residents' feelings were so inflamed by the Secretary of State's decision to overturn the planning inspector's report


that a petition was signed by 3,500 people calling on the Prime Minister to prevent the development. I then took a delegation to hand this petition in to Downing street in September 1985.
Meanwhile, Bolton council decided to appeal to the High Court for a judicial review. Unfortunately, on 28 April this year, Bolton council learnt that it had lost its appeal to the High Court on the ground that the Minister had misdirected himself on the narrow question of land availability. But this was a mere technicality compared with people's feelings about the sanctity of the convenant. It was also felt by many residents that the council had failed at the public inquiry sufficiently to press the other four main objections relating to the covenant, traffic congestion, schools, and drainage, and they had not even been mentioned at the High Court hearing.
The developers are now appealing to the Secretary of State formally to revoke the covenant, and he has requested that representations should be made to him in writing without delay. A petition by local residents to preserve the land as open space in accordance with the Ashworth agreement has been signed by over 5,000 people, some of whom have travelled to London today. I call on the Secretary of State to pay heed to the demonstrated strength of local feeling. Whether or not he is advised that the 1934 covenant still has full legal force today, he should recognise that it has great and continuing moral force in the eyes of all the residents who have made their views so abundantly clear, not least on the Sunday before the general election, when 3,000 "Stop Barratts" campaigners turned out to demonstrate. Many thousands of people have bought properties and settled in the area believing in the sanctity of this covenant. How can the Secretary of State not uphold such a covenant when it clearly has the backing of so many thousands of local residents? I call on the Secretary of State to respect the wishes of the people of Bolton that Birtenshaw farm should remain as open land—one of the last pieces of open land before entering 20 miles of built-up Greater Manchester.
Since the public inquiry in 1985, circumstances have changed. The council has now revised its calculation of land availability and there is a new structure plan for the Secretary of State to consider. Without doubt, traffic conditions have worsened and schools in the constituency have been closed. Therefore, the Minister now has good reasons for refusing to lift the covenant in the interests of constituency and good planning.
What possible grounds can the Secretary of State have for ignoring the clearly expressed wishes of the residents if the allows the development? Surely, he should now take full account of the wishes of the people and their elected representatives, as well as the former owners of the land, and reconsider the decision of his predecessor in 1985, which I and those who know the area well, believe to have been mistaken.
I urge my hon. Friend most strongly to visit Birtenshaw farm to see for herself the importance of this local amenity. It has infuriated local residents that neither the former Secretary of State, nor any other Minister from his Department, could be bothered to visit the site before making the shock decision to overturn the inspector's report. We were pleased to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) during the election, in his former capacity as the Minister responsible

for green belts, especially as he has such detailed and personal knowledge of the area and the history of the Ashworth family. I took that opportunity to hand him a petition signed by over 1,200 local residents, calling for the preservation of open land in the area. In this connection, if it would help the Minister to make up her mind to visit the site, I should be glad to make available to her a video showing the land in question, and the general area of Bradshaw and Bromley Cross, which has been so affected by development over the years.
One of the most disturbing aspects of this case has been the way in which the decision appears to have been made. It would appear that the civil servants in the Department have taken it upon themselves to make decisions in such an important matter in the name of the Secretary of State, but without even bothering to inform him. Is that really true? Can the Minister enlighten me as to whether the Department now runs on the basis of "Yes, Civil Servant," as the Secretary of State nods his head to everything that he finds has been done in his name?
I was told that it was an "oversight" that caused the Minister to fail even to inform me of his decision. I first heard of his decision when I was at the Harwood rose show in my constituency on the Saturday morning after letters from the civil servant in Manchester had gone out to local objectors. This may have been a mere discourtesy to fail to inform me, but I see it as symptomatic of the thoroughly unsatisfactory way in which this decision was made. When I demanded to see the Minister then responsible for planning on my return to Westminster, he at first refused to see me. After I stated that I intended to call publicly for his dismissal, he agreed to see me, but clearly was unaware of the facts, and could not give answers to my questions as to why the planning inspector's report had been overturned. His papers were poor-quality facsimiles transmitted down to London from Manchester, and it was only later that he was able to supply me with clear copies.
Local councillors have drawn the matter to the attention of the local ombudsman on the ground that the council had failed to present its case adequately. I have repeatedly requested the parliamentary ombudsman to take this matter as a clear case of maladministration. I have established that the decision letter was sent out from Manchester on the same day that the Minister in London was supposed to have given his approval. Did he really know what he was doing? Or was he given a few hundred pieces of paper to sign, with this one tucked away in the middle?
I have further established that this was no routine decision. In the previous year, only 20 planning appeals had been decided contrary to the inspector's recommendation, only six had involved residential developments, and only one was for more than 300 houses. It was hardly a decision at which the Minister could have decided that he did not need to look.
My hon. Friend may think that I am asking too many difficult questions, but I must remind her that 3,000 demonstrated against this decision on the final Sunday before the general election. Previous attempts to build on this land were refused, but it did not escape attention that in this case, the developers were a well-known national firm. Many local people have taken the view, which I reject, that this had in some way influenced the decision.
The people of Bolton now want a clear statement of the Government's thoughts on this matter. Perhaps Ministers feel under pressure to secure more building land, but other


land is available in Bolton, including derelict land in need of redevelopment. Why not respect the wishes of the people of Bradshaw and Bromley Cross that Birtenshaw farm should remain as open land in perpetuity? That is the question that I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to answer.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Marion Roe): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) for his kind welcome. I appreciate his good wishes.
I know that the matter raised by my hon. Friend is one which deeply concerns many of his constituents in the Bradshaw and Bromley Cross areas of north Bolton. They have for long regarded the 35 acres of Birtenshaw farm, which lies alongside Turton road, as a valuable last remaining break in the development which would otherwise link their two communities. They regard the stretch of open farmland as an important local amenity which should not be lost to development. They have also expressed fears about the extra traffic which they say the development would put on to local roads and the strain on schools and other local services which they fear might result.
My hon. Friend has on several occasions written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his predecessors, and also to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, about the nature of the decision of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to grant planning permission for housing development at Birtenshaw farm and about the procedures which led to that decision. He has been given assurances that the matter was dealt with entirely in accordance with the Department's normal procedures.
The covenant on the land is an entirely separate issue from the planning appeal. It is the matter which is now before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for decision. It was mentioned during the course of the appeal inquiry but was not discussed there.
Under the covenant, the owners undertook to retain the land as a private open space. With the completion of recent High Court action on their planning appeal, Barratts has asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to use the power available to him to discharge the restriction imposed by the covenant. He is able to do so if he is satisfied that the restriction is inconsistent with the proper planning or development of the area comprising the land.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked Bolton borough council for its views on the request to discharge the covenant. He will exchange its representations with the applicants. He will approach his decision with an open mind and reach it after a thorough consideration of all the relevant facts. It would not be right in the circumstances for him to discuss the case with only one of the parties, or even to visit the site in company with any of them. It is necessary, in the interests of fairness to all concerned, that all representations made to him can be made available for comment to the principal parties—Bolton borough council and Barratt. They should therefore be in writing or, if in the form of a video presentation, be made available also to the other party.
The Secretary of State will of course take account of the views expressed by my hon. Friend tonight. I cannot express any view about what the outcome might be or otherwise comment on the merits of the matter.
It may help the House if I say that the case came to the Secretary of State in July 1984 as an appeal by Barratts Ltd. against the decision of Bolton borough council to refuse planning permission for the construction of 475 houses and bungalows on the land. Because it was for a large development, the appeal was not one for decision by an inspector but fell to be decided by the Secretary of State.
A local inquiry was held in February 1985 and the inspector reported to the Secretary of State in March recommending that the appeal be dismissed. The Secretary of State did not accept the inspector's recommendation and the decision that he gave on 18 July 1985 allowed the appeal and granted outline planning permission for the development.
There is no particular significance in the fact that the decision was contrary to the inspector's recommendation. Most planning appeal decisions do follow the recommendation, but there is always a small proportion where the decision departs from it. This was one such case. Indeed there would be no point in putting cases to Ministers if they were not free to disagree.
The decision to allow this appeal was of course made long before my appointment to the Department. I understand, however, that it was taken by the appropriate Minister in the light of all the evidence presented at the inquiry and having regard to Government policy for housing land set out in the relevant circular. The decision-making process was entirely in accord with the Department's normal practice; the Minister was fully aware of all the facts, and the decision was his.
Nor was there any significance in the fact that the promise to inform my hon. Friend of the decision was not fulfilled. Through an oversight, the correspondence recording this promise had not been attached to the appropriate file. This was most unfortunate and Ministers have expressed their apologies to my hon. Friend for the failure in this matter. I must emphasise, however, that it was a simple error and was in no way an attempt to hide the decision; nor did it suggest anything underhand or a. desire to bypass normal Departmental procedures. As a result of that failure, our procedures have been strengthened to ensure that a similar failure to observe the proper courtesies does not recur.
The decision was in fact taken some days before the formal letters were ready for issue. They were prepared in the Department's Manchester office and despatched from there. That is why a copy had to be telegraphed to the Minister when my hon. Friend unexpectedly raised the matter with him.
The decision to allow the appeal was challenged by Bolton borough council, but was upheld in the High Court last April. The judge said that he was satisfed that the Secretary of State took proper account of proposed alterations to the structure plan for Greater Manchester, that he gave adequate reasons for his decision and that he and the inspector had correctly interpreted and applied the relevant circulars. The planning permission granted by the appeal decision therefore still stands. There are no further procedures for giving it further reconsideration.
As for the disquiet of local residents, it should be remembered that those responsible for preparing decisions on planning appeals must bear in mind the fundamental principle that the onus normally rests with the planning authority to show good reasons why permission should not be given, and that it is not for a developer to show why


it should. Planning authorities were advised by the Government in DOE circular 22/80 that they should always grant planning permission, having regard to all material circumstances, unless there were sound and clear-cut reasons for refusal.
Proposals for housing development are considered additionally in the light of the Government's policy set out in DOE circular 15/84, "Land for Housing". This asks authorities to ensure that at all times sufficient housing land is, or will become, available to provide a five years' supply when measured against the requirements of the development plan for the area.
If a five years' supply is not available, the circular says that there should be a presumption in favour of granting permission for housing, except where there are clear planning objections which in the circumstances of the case outweigh the need to make the land available for housing.
The circular says that the relevant factors which might outweigh the presumption should be clear from the development plan, and goes on to give examples. Among these are that the land is in a green belt or a national park, or area of outstanding natural beauty; that other land of lower agricultural or landscape quality is available; or that essential infrastructure is absent or inadequate.
In the case of Birtenshaw farm, the inquiry evidence showed that, on the basis of the method outlined in the Department's circular, there was a very substantial shortfall in the borough's housing land supply, amounting

to land for at least 1,664 units. The presumption which the circular gave to granting planning permission therefore applied to the appeal site. The land was not in a green belt and was of low agricultural value.
Although objections on grounds of inadequate infrastructure—such as highways, schools and drainage—loomed large in the eyes of local residents, they lacked support fom the local authorities. In the inspector's view, they failed to stand up on their own.
As my hon. Friend said, the inspector nevertheless noted that the site was the only significant relief from urban development along Turton road north of Bolton. He thought that its suburbanisation would seriously diminish the semi-rural character and appearance of the area and would make Bradshaw and Bromley Cross less pleasant places in which to live.
The inspector's report was carefully considered in the light of the Department's published policies, and the decision not to accept his recommendation was taken by the responsible Minister. That decision accepted that development would detract from the present character and appearance of the area. However, because of the housing land shortfall, there was a presumption in favour of granting permission, and the Minister could not agree that the effect of the development on Bradshaw and Bromley Cross would justify preventing the site from making good some of the housing land shortfall.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Two o'clock.